For most theological and doctrinal controversies, the dialogue centers around a particular passage or set of passages in Scripture, and the different sides of the debate typically bring different interpretations of those passages to the table for evaluation. The important point to realize is that in order to be considered a valid, potentially correct understanding of a passage, any doctrinal position must represent a positive interpretation of the passage in question. For example, a typical disagreement might occur over the proper translation of a given Hebrew or Greek word. There may be multiple possibilities, each with its own set of arguments either in its favor or against it. Since each perspective presents a different view of the text based on the text itself, we should try to evaluate each perspective in turn, and seek to allow the Holy Spirit to guide us to the best interpretation.
The evolution/creation controversy, however, is different from most other doctrinal controversies in this respect. The Biblical understanding of the first chapters of Genesis (typically referred to as "young earth creationism," or YEC) simply claims that these chapters mean precisely what they say; i.e., when Genesis 1 refers to the "evening" and "morning" of each day, the most natural and immediate understanding of the text is that the author is speaking of the ordinary days to which we are accustomed. Other positions (which, for simplicity, I will refer to as "non-young earth creationism," or non-YEC) claim that the opening chapters of Genesis do not need to be read in this fashion, but they never offer a more natural reading of the text. In other words, non-YEC consists of no position in and of itself; it is not a positive position grounded on convincing arguments from the text, but instead is a negative position regarding what the text does not say. Rather than presenting an actual alternative to YEC, non-YEC simply tries to explain why YEC is not a necessary reading.
Why does this matter? The fact that non-YEC is only a position insofar as it maintains the negation of YEC indicates that its sole purpose is to explain why the text doesn't have to say what it appears to. But what would be the motivation for such a claim? The motivation is science, and here we get to the heart of the problem. The evolutionist websites (assuming they are Christian) are all presenting a view of Scripture which is interpreted in light of science, thereby making Scripture subservient to science. If science has the final word, then we must always change our view of Scripture to match whatever science tells us.
This philosophy of interpretation, however, flies completely in the face of what Scripture tells us about itself. For instance, consider what we find in Psalm 19:7-9: "The law of the Lord is perfect, restoring the soul; The testimony of the Lord is sure, making wise the simple. The precepts of the Lord are right, rejoicing the heart; The commandment of the Lord is pure, enlightening the eyes. The fear of the Lord is clean, enduring forever; The judgments of the Lord are true; they are righteous altogether" (NASB). This is not the description of a document whose truth is in anyway contingent upon external sources. Moreover, 2 Timothy 3:16-17 reminds us that "All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work" (NASB). The Greek word for teaching here refers to "sound doctrine," which certainly involves what we choose to believe about the opening chapters of Genesis. These verses make clear that Scripture alone is sufficient for the correct understanding of Scripture, with the (often implicit) proviso that the Scriptures be read under the supervening guidance of the Holy Spirit (see, for instance, 1 John 2:27). In short, we do not need science or anything else to help us get at the true meaning of the Scriptures; we need only the help of God Himself.
By failing to provide an argument from the text, non-YEC appeals instead to science as the ultimate authority, and Scripture as something which we must understand in light of what we know from science. This difference (between the evolution/creation controversy and other doctrinal controversies) means that there is little reason to examine the opposing sides of the argument, since the opposing side essentially boils down to subtly questioning the authority of God's Word in the face of apparently contradictory empirical evidence. We must choose by faith to accept what Scripture tells us is true; this is not turning off our brains, as some might suggest, but rather choosing to trust that God is both truthful (Titus 1:2) and sovereignly capable of directing each word written in His Book (Matthew 5:18). These convictions form the foundation of YEC. Any opposing argument worth considering must be grounded not in science, but in Scripture.
