Does the belief that the Earth is spherical require belief in evolution?

“I’ve been debating some flat-earth Christians this past week. There is an argument that they all made that I have not mentioned in any of your articles on the subject, nor in articles by others. They all adamantly insist that belief in a globe and belief in evolution go hand in hand, that one cannot exist without the other. This seems like a complete non sequitur to me, so I wonder what makes them believe this. Have you heard this argument and do you know where they get this idea from?”

Indeed, I have heard this argument many times, although I have not written about it before. My book of 2019 Falling Flat: A Refutation of Flat Earth Claims reflected my thoughts on the flat earth movement at the time, but it was not intended to be exhaustive. That’s why I’ve continued to publish web articles and blog posts about flat-Earth motion, as topics came to mind that I hadn’t covered in my book. Since this person asked, I guess I should turn my attention to this question about the supposed connection between globe earth and evolution.

I’ve often heard flat-earthers make this alleged connection by derisively referring to conventional cosmology as “the spinning, wiggling monkey-space-ball religion.” We all know what the parts ‘spin’, ‘space’ and ‘ball’ are about. I’m not sure what flat earthers mean by the earth wobbling. I recently asked some flat-earthers what flat-earthers mean by that, but the flat-earthers I asked didn’t seem to know either. If I ever find out what that’s about, maybe I’ll blog about it. The parts monkey and religion are clearly a reference to belief in evolutionand with evolutionFlat earthers seem to understand that evolution is about more than just ideas about the naturalistic origins of man and life, but is also about the naturalistic origins of the earth and the universe (some flat-earthers also stick ‘big bang’ in that sentence). Good for them, because many other people understand the broader meaning of evolution.

The supposed connection between Globe Earth and evolution

But how does the shape of the Earth relate to the origin of the universe, Earth, life and humans? After all, until recently I didn’t know any creationists who were flat-earthers, so it seems that way evolution and the shape of the Earth are not related. Like I said, I’ve often heard flat-earthers making a connection between evolution and globe earth, although I have never heard that connection explained. I’ve spent a lot of time listening to flat-earthers’ arguments, from which I think I can identify their reasoning:

1. The earth is flat because God made it that way, with some using Bible verses to support this view. I’ve already discussed this.
2. The fact that the earth is flat is proof of creation, because a flat earth could not have arisen naturally.
3. If people are creationists, they cannot be evolutionists.
4. Therefore, before one can convince people of evolution, one must first convince people that creation is not true (and therefore that there is no God).
5. The best way to convince people that creation is not true is to convince people that the Earth is spherical.
6. If the Earth is spherical, it could form naturally.
7. If the Earth came into being naturally, then everything else probably came into being naturally as well.
8. Therefore, the real agenda behind convincing people that the Earth is spherical instead of flat is to conceal God’s existence.

Examine each of these eight points

I start with the assumption that the earth is spherical because God made it that way.

There are several flaws in this reasoning, such as the premise that the Earth is flat. If the Earth is not flat, the rest of this reasoning is invalid. I start with the assumption that the earth is spherical because God made it that way. You see, I don’t believe in the naturalistic origins of the Earth. The main reason I don’t believe in the naturalistic origins of the earth is that Genesis 1 teaches something completely different. But another reason is that the naturalistic scenarios for planet formation have physical problems. That is, I don’t think properly applied science allows for the naturalistic formation of Earth or other planets. Most secular scientists assume that since planets exist, these planets must have formed naturally, and they are not open to any other possibility. Apparently flat-earthers fear that secular scientists must be on to something here, so they try to short-circuit the secular theories by denying some of the science that supposedly supports the naturalistic origins of planets, for example by denying gravity.

I guess I agree that a flat earth can’t come about naturally, but how do we know? I don’t think anyone has seriously considered the naturalistic origins of a flat earth. Evolutionists come up with explanations for all kinds of things, so if they put their minds to it, why couldn’t evolutionists come up with a natural explanation for the creation of a flat Earth?

I too find it difficult to imagine how anyone can be both a creationist and an evolutionist, but there are many people who are, and call themselves theistic evolutionists, who think that evolution was God’s method of creation. I don’t think theistic evolutionists realize its incompatibility creation And evolution. In his heart, evolution is a naturalistic philosophy of origins. But God is supernatural. If naturalism is sufficient to explain our existence, then supernaturalism is not necessary. If the supernatural is sufficient to explain our existence, then naturalism is redundant.

Given that there are many theistic evolutionists in the world today, I strongly disagree that one should be convinced of this creation is not true to believe in evolution. Sometimes theistic evolution is a stepping stone to becoming a full-fledged evolutionist, but sometimes also theistic evolution is a stepping stone to becoming a full-fledged creationist. So theistic evolution is a two-way street, although some people remain parked on that street.

As I pointed out above, there are physical reasons why a spherical Earth cannot form on its own. It does not follow, therefore, that a spherical Earth leads to a naturalistic origin of the Earth. This takes care of points five and six.

Naturalism is a package deal, so I guess if you believe the Earth came into being naturally, most people would conclude that everything else came into being naturally too. However, this conclusion does not follow the strict rules of logic. The fact that one thing has a naturalistic origin does not mean that all things have a naturalistic origin. Such a conclusion amounts to an argument by analogy. Some flat-Earthers point out this error in an argument for a spherical Earth that goes back at least to Aristotle, namely that if the Sun, Moon, and other planets are spherical, then the Earth must also be spherical. An argument based on analogy is not a rigorous argument. That’s why I find it strange that flat-earthers make the same leap in logic. Okay, I don’t think it’s strange: I’ve often seen flat-earthers point out what they think are logical flaws in the logic of globe-earthers, while committing the same logical blunders themselves.

Given all these considerations, it does not follow that ‘the agenda behind globe Earth’ is to conceal it God‘s existence. If there is an agenda behind ‘the globe’, it is to teach people the truth about the shape of the world in which they live. Flat Earthers often call themselves ‘truth seekers’ or ‘truth seekers’. It’s sad that people supposedly committed to finding the truth reject the abundant evidence that the Earth is spherical.

Conclusion

The only way to find true peace with God is through the substitutionary atonement of God’s unique Son, Jesus Christ.

The last of the eight points is very important. I repeatedly hear flat-earthers claim that the real agenda behind the globe is to convince people that God does not exist. Flat Earthers often say that a flat Earth leads people to believe that God exists. Good! But keep in mind that even demons believe and tremble (James 2:19). Some flat earthers claim that the flat earth has brought them true salvation through repentance and the finished work of Jesus Christ. I can rejoice in that, just as the apostle Paul rejoiced in the preaching of the gospel by those with false motives (Philippians 1:15–18). However, I have noticed that many flat-earthers subscribe to what I call the Touched by an angel school of theology, the theology underlying the 1994-2003 television series of that name. That series did not teach the gospel, but rather taught a humanistic kind of theology, that God wants us to know that He really exists and cares about us, and that knowledge is enough to help us in our daily lives. The same kind of theology was found more irreverent in the 1977 film Oh God! This leaves out the most important fact: that we are sinners, alienated from a holy and righteous one God and the only way to find true peace with it God is through the substitutionary atonement of God‘s unique Son, Jesus Christ. Although there are few atheists among flat-earthers, true biblical Christianity is relatively rare in the flat-earth movement. Many reject Jesus Christ as the only way to salvation. Others are openly hostile to the God of the Bible. This is in stark contrast to the Bible-based mission of Answers in Genesis.