3 seriously bad theological implications of young-earth creationism

The Vredefort crater: evidence that A) the earth is extremely old and Gen 1 is not a history textbook or B) God is an extremely big liar. (public domain)

The Vredefort crater: evidence that A) the earth is extremely old and Gen 1 is not a history textbook or B) God is an extremely big liar. (public domain)

Sometimes, in evangelical circles where young-earth creationism is the dominant view, “believing in” evolution is seen as a theological handicap. Those who accept the overwhelming evidence from virtually every field of science just might experience the following none-too-subtle patronism from our YEC brethren:

“I think you can (lots of emphasis on the can) believe in evolution and be a Christian,” they say, “but it weakens your theology.” And as they say this, it’s entirely possible that they are also hearing in their heads the words of Romans 14 and praying silently that God would come alongside their weaker brother or sister.

Problem is, a non-evolutionary form of creationism has some seriously bad theological implications all its own — ones that any believer should find distasteful. Now, I’m not saying creationism caused the Holocaust or anything like that; I would never lay the blame for one of the most horrific crimes against humanity ever perpetrated on something as simple as one’s perspective on the origin of species. That would be ridiculous.

All the same, here are three logical consequences that follow from the fundamental teachings of young-earth creationism, and a few reasons it deserves to be a theological punching bag for once.

No. 1: God is a liar. The Bible says, “God is not human, that he should lie, not a human being, that he should change his mind.” And yet, at the heart of young-earth creationism lies a deceptive God, a deity who appears to have far more in common with the trickster Loki than the savior I’ve come to know.

The Vredefort crater in South Africa is the largest confirmed impact crater ever discovered on earth; it’s nearly 200 miles across — about the width of the state of Massachusetts. Scientists believe the asteroid that caused it was as much as 6.2 miles in diameter (i.e., about 6.0 more miles than the amount of miles I can run).

Under the young-earth model, this asteroid never could have struck. We know that, because if it did plow into the earth some time in the last 10,000 years, history most definitely would have recorded it, and we would still see the effects of its impact today. In fact, most likely, it would have caused mass extinctions and life would not have yet come close to recovering.

And so, if we must accept the young-earth position that either this planet is absurdly young or the Bible is not true, then we’re left with one option: God created the world with Vredefort and dozens of other large craters already in it, for no other reason than to make us think the earth had been hit by massive asteroids when in fact, it never was.

And it’s not just craters. There’s radiometric dating, ice layering, continental drift, human Y-chromosomal ancestry, the fact that we can see starlight that took billions of years to reach earth, and much more — all of which points to a very, very old earth (and if you don’t feel like reading, here’s a helpful infographic made by Christian smart people).

Speaking as a Christian, I think these facts are pretty overwhelming. And I decided it made a lot more sense to believe in a God who first revealed himself in a document meant to convey theological — not scientific or historical — truth, rather than a God who told the literal truth in Genesis but lied in creation.

No. 2: Faith is unnecessary. Throughout the Bible, we see the high premium God puts on faith. It was a frequent theme of Jesus’ messages: Obey me, believe me, even when it doesn’t make sense.

Creationism teaches that there is no reason to have faith, and here’s why: If the scientific evidence, objectively observed, really does point to the entire universe arising in a single creative event no more than 10,000 years ago, as YECs claim, then that means those who wrote the Bible undeniably had knowledge that they couldn’t have had without the touch of God. Thus, the case is closed. God is real, the Bible is inspired and perfect — no further discussion necessary.

Any Christian should recoil from that. We know there is no power in rote knowledge of objective facts; the power is in our faith. Abraham was a man who talked to God. He had no need for faith in him — he had heard his voice. And indeed, Abraham is not remembered as a man who believed in God — that was easy for him. He is revered as a man of faith, because he trusted in God’s promises, even when they seemed impossible.

I accept that there are legitimate reasons to doubt God’s existence. But I still choose to believe and trust in him, because through my faith and his unfailing grace, I have encountered a relationship with a savior that defies explanation.

No. 3: Nonbelievers must be avoided. Young-earth creationism creates (alliteration, get it?) a vast gulf between those who believe in the Bible and virtually everyone else.

When I engage with other Christians who disagree with me on evolution, I have never sensed in them much of a longing for nonbelievers to experience the joy and salvation of knowing Jesus. I more often tend to encounter a deep animosity and mistrust, especially toward scientists. But here’s the thing: If our shared theology is correct, we should be doing all we can to reach that very population (the scientific community) with a message of Christ that might make sense to them.

There is good evidence that the prevalence of atheism or agnosticism is much higher among scientists than in the general population. Creationism proponents say that is because of the deleterious effects of something called “evolutionary philosophy” or some such nonsense, and I disagree (accepting the scientific consensus for the origin of species has done nothing to shake my belief in the God I worship every day).

But the bottom line is that even if scientists are atheists because of evolution, isn’t that something that should concern us? Traditional Christian theology would tell us this is a large population of people beloved by God who are destined for destruction unless we can — with the aid of the Holy Spirit — figure out a way to fulfill the great commission in their midst. What a missions field!

To paraphrase Paul in 1 Corinthians, he wrote that he “became all things to all people so that by all possible means (he) might save some.”

I do not see the same enthusiasm in my YEC brothers and sisters to share the gospel with scientists. And that’s not surprising, since creationism teaches that there is no need to try to reach them, because the evidence that supports the “correct” interpretation of the Bible is supposedly in front of their eyes every day, and they are either too stupid to see it or deliberately choose to ignore it.

Tyler Francke is founder of God of Evolution and author of Reoriented. He can be reached at tyler@godofevolution.com.

Category: Featured, Theology

  • http://www.facebook.com/turophile23 Peter Hardy

    I’m committed to the view that natural selection, unlike a historical Adam, is necessary for a proper explication of original sin.

    • http://godofevolution.com/ Tyler Francke

      I agree with you on that one. Plan on writing about it at some point. Thanks for reading!

    • Rick O’Donnell

      Do you have a more detailed explanation of this point of view somewhere?

      • http://www.facebook.com/turophile23 Peter Hardy

        I would defer to the Faith Movement and the writings of its founder Edward Holloway. http://www.faith.org.uk

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1075928229 Alan Christensen

    If we didn’t evolve, the Lord sure put a lot of effort into making it look as if we did!

    • http://godofevolution.com/ Tyler Francke

      Very well said!

  • http://www.facebook.com/turophile23 Peter Hardy

    Accepting evolutionary biology also provides another rational consideration for recognising lust as a sin- that it is illusory. I mean, lust is irrational and based on the drive to procreate.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Archie-Montgomery/100000658782526 Archie Montgomery

    Mr. Francke, thank you for your exposition. I agree with your observations, having arrived at essentially the same conclusions many years ago.

    For a different perspective to the same subject, I invite your perusal and comments on my essay “Why I am not a Young Earth Creationist” at my blog, http://www.oldmanmontgomery.wordpress.com

    Pray excuse my crass self-promotion.

    • http://godofevolution.com/ Tyler Francke

      I won’t fault you a little self-promotion, however crass ;) I’d love to see your essay, but the link just goes to your homepage. Would you mind posting a direct link to the article? Or you can email it to me; my email address is all over the place on this site.

  • Sam Haylor

    Your first two implications would indeed be serious if they were valid. However, I believe your arguments are flawed. In your first point, you trust in the inerrancy of modern science but are comfortable making Genesis 1 mean what it doesn’t say, which ironically is the very definition of a lie. Is it not plausible that God used huge meteors as a causal agent to make “the fountains of the great deep burst open, and the floodgates of the sky” to open? Radiometric dating and most of the other methods you list are only as reliable as the presuppositions they are based on and assume a constant rate of decay or layering which is completely unverifiable and fairly absurd. In fact, the one method listed in your wiki link that is verifiably consistent (Dendrochronology) shows not a single tree being more than 5,000 years old! But I digress…
    Your second point is somewhat disconcerting to me. The Bible actually does claim to be perfect and inspired and God is presumed real. You seem to be suggesting that God has intentionally obscured His truth so that we would be forced to “trust” what we cannot understand? Sorry, but that is not faith. Faith is believing His clearly-worded promises even when we don’t see them being fulfilled, or when popular opinion states otherwise. His Word must be understandable otherwise we wouldn’t know what promises to believe.
    Your third point is too subjective to dispute and has no bearing on the veracity of YEC. Nothing about reading Genesis 1 as historical narrative demands apathy toward unbelievers.
    Sorry for the long reply. Your posts at least make me think!

    • http://godofevolution.com/ Tyler Francke

      In your first point, you trust in the inerrancy of modern science

      No, I don’t.

      but are comfortable making Genesis 1 mean what it doesn’t say, which ironically is the very definition of a lie.

      I still am unable to understand why the only options for a story in the Bible is literal history or “a lie.” Do you use this same formula when reading the parables of Jesus?

      Is it not plausible that God used huge meteors as a causal agent to make “the fountains of the great deep burst open, and the floodgates of the sky” to open?

      Sure, but that doesn’t exactly explain the whole, “life would have needed a whole lot more than 6,000 years to recover from even one of these meteors hitting the earth” thing. It also doesn’t account for why the craters can all be dated to very different times. But, oh wait, you have a response for that one:

      Radiometric dating and most of the other methods you list are only as reliable as the presuppositions they are based on and assume a constant rate of decay or layering which is completely unverifiable and fairly absurd.

      I agree that presuming a constant rate of decay or layering is, by definition, unverifiable, but presuming the rates have always been similar to what we see today seems to me to be far less “absurd” than believing they used to be thousands of times faster, but then slowed way down to a constant rate right around the time we started recording them, which is what you must believe in order for young-earthism to be true.

      In fact, the one method listed in your wiki link that is verifiably consistent (Dendrochronology) shows not a single tree being more than 5,000 years old!

      How awfully convenient that you find this method to be the only one that is “verifiably consistent.” Out of genuine curiosity, why do you find dendrochronology to be any more verifiable than radiometric dating? Isn’t it just as possible that, before the science of dendrochronology developed in the 1900s, tree rings were produced at different rates than what we see today? Perhaps, in the 1500s, trees produced 10 rings per month, then in the 1600s, they produced only one every 50 years. There’s no way to know for sure, is there? It’s presumed that the rates are constant, just like with radiometric decay, ice layering, the speed of light and all the rest.

      You seem to be suggesting that God has intentionally obscured His truth so that we would be forced to “trust” what we cannot understand?

      Nope, that’s what creationists suggest, by requiring the evidence for an ancient earth and universe to be ignored in favor of their literalist interpretations of scripture.

      Faith is believing His clearly-worded promises even when we don’t see them being fulfilled, or when popular opinion states otherwise. His Word must be understandable otherwise we wouldn’t know what promises to believe.

      I agree with this, but don’t forget, “It is the glory of God to conceal a matter; to search out a matter is the glory of kings.” – Proverbs 25:2.

      Nothing about reading Genesis 1 as historical narrative demands apathy toward unbelievers.

      Agreed, but it is generally one of the symptoms, in order for adherents to avoid the cognitive dissonance that it creates.

      Sorry for the long reply. Your posts at least make me think!

      No apology necessary, and thank you! I appreciate your thoughts, your approach and your willingness to engage on the issue.

      • Sam Haylor

        “I still am unable to understand why the only options for a story in the Bible is literal history or “a lie.” Do you use this same formula when reading the parables of Jesus?”

        I believe this question goes to the heart of it all. It’s not a “formula” per se but a hermeneutic. I said it before in another post that it’s exactly what you expect your readers to do with your words: understand them the way you intended them. The context makes 99% of all Scripture clear as to what genre a passage is being written in. Hebrew poetry is very distinct. Genesis 1-3 are not written in Hebrew poetry. Add to that names, places, events in time and their sequence leaves the honest student with only one genre, historical narrative. Jesus’s parables are almost always preceded with “He spoke another parable” and the like. This is why I said you trust in the inerrancy of modern science because you have to change the meaning of Genesis 1 because it doesn’t fit with some scientific data, thus rendering science immutable and the Bible mutable.

        • http://godofevolution.com/ Tyler Francke

          The context makes 99% of all Scripture clear as to what genre a passage is being written in.

          I’m just not sure the ancient Hebrew writers really operated this way. And I think most, if not all, of Jesus’ parables (especially the longer ones, of course) include the elements you mention, with the exception of the names.

          If you have a few minutes (and haven’t seen it already), please check out this short video by theologian N.T. Wright. He explains the “history vs. myth” thing better than I could. Let me know what you think if you do watch it.

          Jesus’s parables are almost always preceded with “He spoke another parable” and the like.

          I don’t think that’s true. Although some of his parables are certainly preceded in this way, I had no trouble finding four that are not, including a couple of his most well-known: the good Samaritan (Luke 10), the parable of the talents (Matthew 25), the ten virgins (also Matthew 25) and the parable of the friend at midnight (Luke 11). Of course, some of these have headings that identify them as parables, but I believe Bible scholars agree that the headings were much later additions to the text.

          • Sam Haylor

            Trying to keep things brief… what distinguishes a parable from a historical narrative is the use (or absence) of specifics of who, where and when. Btw, when I said “and the like” I should have included statements such as “the kingdom of heaven is like.”

            I watched the video and read the article below it. Though probably not intentional, I think the argument is a misdirect which puts the focus on whether myth and history can coexist, which is irrelevant to me. The issue is whether Genesis 1 can be taken at face value or not. When God says, “there was evening and there was morning, one day” then directly links the next 5 days with identical and sequential language” there’s much more than a myth being stated.

            Moses presumed a literal six days when he introduced the Sabbath. Jesus presumed a literal six days when He speaks on divorce in Mark 10:6 saying, “but from the beginning of creation, God made them male and female.” Paul presumed a literal account of Gen 3 in at least two places (1 Corinthians 11:8 and 1 Timothy 2:9-14), not to mention many places in Romans 5 and 6.

            The gospel necessitates the fact that death is a result of one man’s sin and that Christ offers forgiveness of sins by offering His own life to satisfy God’s holy wrath. Death is associated with Satan and will be destroyed with him at the final judgment, literally!

            I can tell you take this topic as seriously as I do. I’m your guest here and don’t want to wear out my welcome. I’ll keep chiming in as long as you let me but perhaps there’s a better place for lengthier discussions?

          • http://godofevolution.com/ Tyler Francke

            Sam, first of all, your comments and your thoughts are most welcome. You are in no danger for “wearing out your welcome” as far as I’m concerned. I would suggest we could talk further through email, but since I already owe you a response through email (it’s coming eventually, I promise :) I’m fine with leaving the discussion here, as long as it’s on a topic that’s relevant to the site.

            I see where you’re coming from in regards to the supposed textual differences between parables and historical narrative (and it’s an argument I’ve heard many times before), but I’m sure we can both agree that we should not necessarily put God into a strict box. Surely, he is entitled to reveal truth however he likes and thinks is best. Perhaps the parables are simple and mostly devoid of names, dates and places because they are usually meant to convey one or two simple moral or spiritual lessons, and the creation account is very complex because it is meant to reveal many spiritual lessons and symbolize many things?

            I’m not sure if you are familiar with the accommodationalist approach John Calvin took to explain the firmament that is described in Genesis 1:6-8. Please forgive me if you have seen this before, but here’s what he had to say:

            For, to my mind, this is a certain principle: that nothing is treated here except the visible form of the world. Whoever wishes to learn astronomy and other esoteric arts, let him go elsewhere … Therefore, the things which he [i.e., Moses] relates, serve as the decorative objects from that theatre which he [i.e., God] places before our eyes.From this I conclude that the waters intended here are such as the crude and unlearned may perceive. The assertion of some, that they embrace by faith what they have read concerning the waters above the heavens, notwithstanding their ignorance of them, is not in accordance with the design of Moses. And truly a longer inquiry into a matter open and manifest is superfluous.

            Essentially, he admits that the Holy Spirit accommodated the author of Genesis’s ancient view of the sky into the creation narrative, but that does not mean the author’s ancient view was correct (we know now that it was not). It’s just that teaching about the scientific properties of the sky and the water cycle was not the Holy Spirit’s goal in the text.

            Of course, that is just John Calvin’s fallible pinion, which anyone is free to accept or reject, but it’s a persuasive one for me, and I thought it might be valuable in helping to explain my view.

            As to the NT references of Genesis, some of which you mention, I personally think it is reasonable that either the same type of accommodation is occurring (the Holy Spirit is incorporating the beliefs of the time in order to teach a deeper truth (and yes, Jesus is God, but he seemed to admit he gave up some of his knowledge in the flesh when he said he does not know when the day of judgment will occur)) or that both Jesus and Paul were aware that the things about which they wrote/spoke were symbolic of deeper things, and used them in the same way.

            I do believe sin began with the first man and woman who had a soul and free will, and that sin brought death into the world, but I believe that death was spiritual — the severing of our immortal soul from our ultimate source of life, a perfect, sinless God. I think there is evidence that the death that comes from sin is spiritual even in Genesis: For one thing, if the punishment for eating from the tree was physical death, both Adam and Eve should have died immediately, because God said, “On the day you eat of it, you shall surely die.” But they didn’t. The text says they lived hundreds of years afterward.

            If Adam and Eve were incapable of dying before they disobeyed, then why would God see the need to plant a Tree of Life? And why would he banish them from the garden before they ate of it? And why did he curse Eve saying, “I will greatly INCREASE your pain in child bearing,” if pain had not previously existed?

            And finally, wouldn’t it seem shortsighted of God to command all life to “be fruitful and multiply” in a world that had no death? The earth’s resources would eventually (and probably pretty quickly) be exhausted.

            Whew. Long post. Thanks again for your questions and comments. Peace.

          • Sam Haylor

            Thanks for inviting me to stick around! And just to remind any readers why this is relevant to the discussion, I originally argued that God is a liar if said He made the world in six literal days but really didn’t. Thus the discussion over interpreting Genesis 1 as literal historical narrative…

            No, I had not read Calvin’s commentary on Genesis prior to your mentioning
            but found a copy of it. It was no surprise to me to find that he understood Gen. 1 as a literal historical narrative and that the six days mentioned are six normal days as we know them.

            I think you’ve misunderstood his point regarding the separation of the waters above from the waters below. Don’t know if you’ve read his comments in their entirety but Calvin does not re-interpret Moses’ “incorrect view”. He doesn’t even suggest that Moses was wrong. When he says, “Whence I conclude, that the waters here meant are such as the rude and unlearned may perceive” he was saying that Moses “dumbed down” the complex nature of clouds and rain so that anybody could understand without being studied in weather systems. “Waters above” is not wrong, just brief.

            Also, when he says, “Whoever wishes to learn astronomy and other esoteric arts, let him go elsewhere…” he was correcting those who “resort to allegory, and philosophize concerning angels.” He apparently uses the word “astronomy” interchangeably to describe either the science of star study or astrology, the latter making more sense here given the context of his rebuke.

            I’ll leave your final comments on sin for another time but will say I fully appreciate your questions and will not simply dismiss them out of hand.

          • http://godofevolution.com/ Tyler Francke

            Hey Sam, thanks for your response. Just a couple quick thoughts. Just to let you know, I have not read Calvin’s entire commentary on Genesis, but I have read enough to believe that you are correct in saying he did understand the first chapter to be historical and the six days to be literal.

            I think you’ve misunderstood his point regarding the separation of the waters above from the waters below. Don’t know if you’ve read his comments in their entirety but Calvin does not re-interpret Moses’ “incorrect view”. He doesn’t even suggest that Moses was wrong. When he says, “Whence I conclude, that the waters here meant are such as the rude and unlearned may perceive” he was saying that Moses “dumbed down” the complex nature of clouds and rain so that anybody could understand without being studied in weather systems. “Waters above” is not wrong, just brief.

            I see where you are coming from, and I think you’ve articulated yourself well. I would just clarify that it is not the “waters above” part that I was saying is incorrect, but the existence of a “firmament” — a solid dome (or at least one that is solid enough to support water). And in the flood narrative, the firmament is described as having windows, or floodgates.

            However, that is a minor trifle. The most interesting part of your answer to me is that you admit that Moses could have “dumbed down” something very complex (in this case, the sky) so that someone unlearned could understand it. If this is true, would it really be so disagreeable for this principle or a very similar one to be applied to the entire chapter?

          • Sam Haylor

            Not at all. Given what we know about astrophysics and that we probably don’t understand 1% of it all it’s obvious God “dumbed” down His creation work for us! My point was that nothing He says in Gen 1 (or in the whole of Scripture) is false or needs to be read as a myth to pat Moses on the head and say, “you meant well.” It’s simplified but accurate truth. The water was all on the surface (waters below); God created the atmosphere (the “expanse”) and set the water cycles in motion via clouds (waters above). Pretty ingenious to wrap all that into a couple of verses!

            As for the “firmament,” that was a poorly chosen word to translate what is simply “expanse”. I am not aware of any evidence that Moses or the Jews thought the sky was solid. They could see birds flying in it and rain falling from it.

            Finally, I realize my saying that the “floodgates” makes total sense as a figurative term will probably set off all kinds or alarms and lights and cries of “you take Genesis 1 literally but not Genesis 7?!” All I can say in this brief comment is, it is the most reasonable and plain reading of the text, grammatically, syntactically, and in its context.

            Blessings.

          • http://godofevolution.com/ Tyler Francke

            Pretty ingenious to wrap all that into a couple of verses!

            I share your enthusiasm for the ingenuity of the text. Genesis 1-3 is masterfully constructed and beautifully written.

            As for the “firmament,” that was a poorly chosen word to translate what is simply “expanse”. I am not aware of any evidence that Moses or the Jews thought the sky was solid. They could see birds flying in it and rain falling from it.

            Modern translations like the NIV and ESV have certainly preferred the word “expanse,” but I’m not sure the evidence indicates that their word is more faithful to the original Hebrew than “firmament.” The Online Etymology Dictionary does seem to indicate some ambiguity on the word “firmament”:

            from Latin firmamentum “firmament,” literally “a support or strengthening,” from firmus “firm” (see firm (adj.)), used in Vulgate to translate Greek stereoma “firm or solid structure,” which translated Hebrew raqia, a word used of both the vault of the sky and the floor of the earth in the Old Testament, probably literally “expanse,” from raqa “to spread out,” but in Syriac meaning “to make firm or solid,” hence the erroneous translation.

            However, the 1906 Jewish Encyclopedia’s entry on “cosmogony” affirmed that the early Hebrew view of the universe saw the sky as a solid dome:

            The Hebrews regarded the earth as a plain or a hill figured like a hemisphere, swimming on water. Over this is arched the solid vault of heaven. To this vault are fastened the lights, the stars. So slight is this elevation that birds may rise to it and fly along its expanse.

            Your honesty is appreciated, Sam. Blessings.

  • http://opensauce.no-ip.biz/ Rick Allen

    I saw an article by James Mcgrath along a similar vein. He was less charitable, but he had some useful things to point out about the Theological problems of YEC. I have come to a similar position that the YEC world and bible view paints God as 1. Unjust, 2. Capricious, 3. A deceiver. They always seem to argue that “God can do what he likes because he is sovereign”. I agree, God “could” do what he likes, but I think certain things he could do, just aren’t in his nature to do. God is supposed to be like the King of Deuteronomy 14, which was pointing to David who was a type for Jesus. It is clearly taught in the NT that Jesus had the power to do anything, but chose to do what he had promised to do. The bible teaches that the only deceivers we have to worry about are ourselves and Satan, not God. How can you obey the command to trust God if he was unjust, capricious, and a deceiver? This is why David was a type for Jesus, and not Saul, who is the anti King. I think a YEC view of God may actually be closer to having Saul as their type for Jesus.

    • http://godofevolution.com/ Tyler Francke

      Good points, Rick! Thanks so much for commenting. Yes, James McGrath and I are of a similar opinion on this, that the God YECs seem to believe in is not in line with the one they say they believe in.

  • http://www.facebook.com/lakefossilpress Nickolaus Pacione

    I also believe in Evolution and I am debunking Eric Hovind — I call YECs aka Young Earth Liars. I do have an exchange with one of them where I have gone into a fit of profanity and used the term young earth liars. I have a new story I am working on and how do you show this to those who never learned about this — God sent his son to die for our sins. But I think the blame on young earth creationism is on The King James Only movement. I’ve written my testimony out as a full length book. I am invited Hovind to submit for my anthology project to defend his position. God sat back and allowed Evolution to happen — then got into the play when written history occurred. The Genesis account has origins in the Epic of Gilgamesh — I hope that’s not too far off.       This is an observation I make that’s a bit darker. You also have the young who buy into the bullcrap the KJO movement feed them. This belief in Evolution when you also believe in God is also controversial but makes more sense because I do believe this too — but if you teach this; don’t do it in a high school setting but do it in a college. This is college level Christianity. With young-earthers it’s almost Twilight Zone style logic because you have them singing a Country western hymn about how they still count on the King James. Our belief in evolution also lines up with Atheists as I am once an Atheist but how do you get them sold that God used evolution to create the world?