Macro-evolution is absolutely incompatible with Christian Doctrine

1 Six Days vs. Billions of Years My opponent readily concedes that a "literal" account of Biblical creation, as recorded in Genesis, is incompatible with the billions of years required by macro-evolution. However, he argues that it is possible to disregard the face-value reading of Genesis. Further my opponent points out that there are factions of Christian denominations that do disregard the face-value reading of Genesis. As an example, my opponent offers the Catholic Church as the largest "sect" of Christianity that disregards the face value-reading of Genesis and is willing to accept macro-evolution as compatible with their teachings. My opponent believes that it would be sufficient to rest on this point. This is not the case. The authority for Christian doctrine is God, not man. Christian doctrine represents an objective reality and absolute truth. God's chief revelation to man of objective reality and absolute truth is the Bible. The Bible, as God's revelation to man, is the final authority on the objective reality and absolute truth of Christian doctrine. Note that in order to accept macro-evolution one must necessarily disregard a face value reading of Genesis. In no case can a face-value, or literal, reading of Genesis be compatible with macro-evolution. This means that macro-evolution and a face value, literal reading of Genesis are mutually exclusive. The law of non-contradiction dictates that they cannot both be true. Since we know that the Bible is God's revelation to man and our final authority on objective reality and absolute truth, anything that contradicts the Bible must necessarily be rejected as false. Any teaching that contradicts the Word of God must be regarded as false. If such a falsehood is found to be taught in a Christian denomination it must therefore be regarded, not as Christian doctrine, but as heresy. 2 Genesis vs. Science: Order of Events My opponent concedes that a face-value or literal reading of Genesis is contradictory to macro-evolution. This makes them mutually exclusive and the law of non-contradiction dictates that they cannot then both be true. Anything that contradicts the Word of God must necessarily be rejected as false and therefore incompatible with the objective reality and absolute truth of Christian doctrine. Additionally, my opponent states that macro-evolution does not require a specific order of events. I believe he is mistaken. Macro-evolution, as popularly understood and accepted, dictates a progression of life from the simplest self-replicating cells through an ongoing series of increasingly complex life forms. A key evidence given to support the validity of macro-evolution is the fossil record which shows the progression of life from the lowest and simplest forms on the bottom layers with an increase of complexity as the layers rise. So key in fact is the layering of the fossil record in showing the progression of macro-evolution, that it has been famously repeated that the discovery of a rabbit fossil in the Precambrian layer would falsify macro-evolution theory. In order to reconcile macro-evolution with Christian doctrine, my opponent would have to deny the necessity for a prescribed order of events and thus do violence to macro-evolution theory as it is popularly understood and believed. Such machinations of macro-evolution do not satisfy my opponent's burden. 3 Death: Since Beginning or Fall of Man My opponent asserts that death would not be required for a macro-evolutionary process to generate life forms up to and including man. He offers a suggestion for how this process may have taken place but admits it disregards macro-evolution theory as it is popularly understood and accepted. His suggestion requires a reordering of "events science has predicted" and discounts the necessity for events to hold to such predicted order. As shown above, the order of events in macro-evolution are indeed very important to its validity. So much is the case that a fossil found out of place would falsify the theory. Additionally, macro-evolution theory, as popularly understood and accepted, holds that the time between the emergence of fish and the emergence of pre-human creatures is approximately 498 million years. Absent of death and killing things, what did these fish eat for 500 million years? The process of macro-evolution hinges on natural selection and survival of the fittest. The whole process requires that the non-fit creatures die and the creatures with mutations favorable for adaptation perpetuate. Without things getting dead there is no pressure to bring about the changes in natural selection. Additionally, the fossil record, which is made up of dead creatures, clearly shows that there were hundreds of millions of years of things getting dead between the emergence of fish and the emergence of men. It is clearly evident by all popular understanding and acceptance of macro-evolution theory that death is absolutely required for the process to take place. But my opponent concedes that this is only a problem with a face-value, literal reading of the Bible. As this is the case, macro-evolution and face-value Genesis are mutually exclusive and the law of non-contradiction dictates that only one can be true. Anything that contradicts the Word of God must necessarily be rejected as false and therefore incompatible with the objective reality and absolute truth of Christian doctrine. In order to reconcile macro-evolution with Christian doctrine, my opponent would have to deny the necessity of death as a catalyst for change and thus do violence to macro-evolution theory as it is popularly understood and believed. Such machinations of macro-evolution theory do not satisfy my opponent's burden in disproving my thesis. 4 Christ's Sacrifice on the Cross for Man's Sin My opponent's argument seems to be that the penalty for sin is only spiritual death and not physical death. This is clearly not the case. The penalty for sin is both spiritual and physical death as demonstrated by Old Testament sacrifice and Christ's death on the cross. O.T. sacrifice was a foreshadowing of Christ's necessary sacrifice. O.T. sacrifice required the physical killing of animals and the shedding of blood. How would this represent a death that was only spiritual? My opponent fails to recognize the most important aspect of Christ's death being that He was resurrected from the dead and walked the earth in bodily form. Christ conquered spiritual death and physical death. Macro-evolution requires death. If God used macro-evolution as His method of creation then He would have created death and said it was good (Gen 1:12, 21, 25 & 31) This is in contradiction to Romans 6:23: "the wages of sin is death but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord." Since macro-evolution requires death it is in contradiction to the Bible and the law of non-contradiction dictates that both cannot be true. If anything contradicts the Word of God then it must necessarily be rejected as false and therefore incompatible with the objective reality and absolute truth of Christian doctrine. 5 The Ark: Few Thousand Years vs. Billions My opponent refers to three possible ways to reconcile macro-evolution theory and the Biblical account of the flood. The first is to disregard the face value reading of Genesis and deny either that the flood was global or that the flood happened at all. This solution would make macro-evolution and face-value Genesis mutually exclusive. The second and third solutions would not validate the compatibility of macro-evolution with Christian doctrine because there would be no intersection between the two. I appreciate the attention of the reader and anticipate my opponent's vigorous response.