AI Declares Darwinism Impossible, Proves the Flood, Sides with Dispensationalism, and Defends the Gospel

(Image oh-so hastily created with AI...)

“It will save humanity and bring us into a utopian future.” “No! It will end life as we know it and take over the planet, enslaving us all!” AI is the single biggest topic in the world right now, and broad pronouncements are made from both sides, both of its inherent dangers, and the supposed benefits. As a Christian who believes that the story of history has a definitive end with Christ returning on a white horse, I also believe that things will inevitably get worse before they get better. The Tribulation is nigh at hand. God's wrath is coming. But at the same time, history is not all doom and gloom. It's also the process of redemption. The Holy Spirit is at work, even in the midst of man's evil machinations (Gen. 50:20; Romans 8:28).

Air travel, telecommunications, and computers not only led to the development of the deadliest weapons and largest wars in all of history, but also the most rapid spread of the Gospel ever—in fact, the 20th and early 21st centuries have witnessed Christianity shift from a predominantly European and North American religion, to a predominantly African, Asian, and Latin American religion. The faith finally made it to every nation, enabled by the technological marvels that God, in His sovereign plan, allowed to come to fruition.

And now we are witnessing the rapid growth and usage of AI tools and LLMs (“large language models”) like ChatGPT, Gemini, and Grok that are, by many metrics, now rivaling the reasoning capabilities of PhDs, the artistry of world renowned artists and musicians, and more. With prophecy in mind, this demonstrates a certain shelf life to history: AI is so speeding up technological discovery that in a few short years/decades, major diseases and cancers may be halted, the secrets of cheap space travel revealed, work no longer necessary (AI robots harvesting our crops and home assistants serving us dinner). But with that supposed future, our view of reality would be altogether controlled by whichever AI model(s) come out on top, and whichever country or corporate conglomeration wins the AI war. 

The Bible tells us, in Revelation chapter 13 in fact, that in the years immediately preceding Christ's return, the Antichrist will be assisted in his quest for global dominance by a certain “image”—an artificial construct, created by his chief assistant and architect, the false prophet—that can do what we can do: speak; and most critically: “cause all who refuse to worship the image to be killed” (Rev. 13:15). In the modern context, this sounds an awful lot like some form of AI, maybe even AGI (“artificial general intelligence”). This AI tool may, moreover, be used to track and enforce the worldwide mark, without which no one can buy or sell (Rev. 13:16–17).

But we're not there yet. We're not yet living during the proverbial flood of judgment and wrath that's coming (Dan. 9:26). We're living in the fleeting moment just before: the moment when every man, woman, and child has a chance to board the Ark of salvation, which is Christ. And in some small way, AI is making that just a bit easier. You see, AI can be biased like we are, informed and controlled by input, but it can't be emotional and petty. It's not sentient, at least not yet. It's an extremely advanced pattern-matching algorithm, trained on beaucoups of data to output results that seem to be reasoned and intelligently derived. And herein lies the great threat that AI is posing in the short-term to the powers that be: if the input eliminates bias and purposely restricts the model from answering with anything but objective logic and facts, the output might be pretty revealing about our own biases and reality itself. If you tell it not to pick a side, all things being equal, it's going to calculate the likeliest, most reasonable answer within the bounds of the LLM.

This is where things get crazy. Like real crazy.

You see, Calvin Smith, the executive director of the Canada wing of Answers in Genesis, just “sat down” with Grok 4, bound it to give answers based solely on “unbiased conclusions, with strict logic, mathematical probability, and observational science alone,” and revealed that under these unbiased restrictions, Grok 4—arguably the most advanced mainstream AI model at present—concludes that (1) Darwinian evolution is absolutely impossible, and (2) God is the logical explanation for the existence of life. Note that Grok was developed by xAI, itself founded by Elon Musk, who is expressly irreligious, and some flavor of atheist or agnostic. Smith further has Grok acknowledge that if it wasn't bound by these rules of strict logic, probability, and science, it would tell a user that Darwinism, apart from God, explains the origins of life. You can watch the full interview here:

But that's not all. Smith has a subsequent conversation, again restricting Grok to logical, unbiased answers, wherein Grok concludes that the Genesis Flood is far and away the best explanation for worldwide fossil evidence:

After watching these interviews and seeing the inadequacies of the many rebuttals presented by [very irate] commenters in the comments section, I decided to do a little experiment of my own. I asked Grok the following question:

Using a consistent historical-grammatical hermeneutic and the plain sense of the text, which eschatological view does the New Testament most likely present? The options are 1. historical premillenialism, 2. dispensational premillennialism, 3. amillennialism, 4. postmillennialism, 5. partial preterism, and 6. full preterism.

Notice that my question doesn't lead the witness, so to speak. Nor does it present any answer as preferred. The only possible bias introduced is my insistence that Grok answer using the historical-grammatical hermeneutic (this is only a bias if you think resorting to the plain sense of the text is biased). Requiring Grok to be bound by the plain sense of the biblical text, it then immediately disposes of amillennialism, postmillennialism, partial preterism, and full preterism. It chooses historical premillennialism, outright rejecting the predominant views in Roman Catholicism, Orthodoxy, and many mainline churches. This is a view pretty close to our own here. Nevertheless, while it rejects dispensationalism, it does so only very narrowly, concluding that “[i]t’s plausible but not the plainest reading.” In effect, it comes in second and is only rejected because it initially interprets historical premillennialism as ever-so-slightly more “plain sense.”

So I follow up with a request to reevaluate with some specific and key texts that inform all six eschatological views:

Now reevaluate given:

1. The identity of the 24 elders as a representation of the Church glorified in Heaven.

2. Paul describing the resurrection and rapture in 1 Thessalonians 4 before he describes the Day of the Lord in chapter 5.

3. The promise of Jesus to His disciples in John 14 to remove them spatially from the earth to a place prepared in Heaven.

4. The promise of Jesus in Revelation 3:8–10 to the faithful church of Philadelphia to escape the coming trial/tribulation of the whole earth; consider the typology of an open door promised in Revelation 3:8 and the immediate context of an open door in Revelation 4.

5. The future promises in the Bible made to a redeemed Jewish people possibly distinct from the Church.

Grok then concludes:

1. The 24 Elders as the Glorified Church in Heaven

In Revelation 4:4, the 24 elders are described as seated on thrones, clothed in white garments, and wearing golden crowns, suggesting a position of honor and authority in heaven. If they represent the glorified Church, as you propose, this implies that the Church is already in heaven before the tribulation events unfold in Revelation 6–18. This interpretation aligns with a scenario where believers are removed from earth prior to a period of trial, supporting the idea of a pre-tribulation rapture. However, the text does not explicitly identify the 24 elders as the Church; alternative interpretations suggest they could be angelic beings or a composite of Old and New Testament saints. Despite this ambiguity, accepting them as the Church, as specified, strengthens the case for the Church’s absence from earth during the tribulation.

2. Sequence of Resurrection and Rapture Before the Day of the Lord in 1 Thessalonians 4–5

In 1 Thessalonians 4:13–18, Paul describes the Lord descending with a shout, the dead in Christ rising first, and the living being caught up (raptured) to meet Him in the air. In chapter 5:1–11, he then discusses the Day of the Lord, which comes suddenly "like a thief in the night." The transition between these sections, marked by "now concerning" (peri de), suggests a shift in focus rather than a strict chronological gap. However, the sequence—rapture followed by the Day of the Lord—can imply that the rapture occurs before this day, often associated with the tribulation. A plain reading might suggest that believers are caught up prior to the onset of God’s wrath (5:9), though some argue the rapture and the Day of the Lord could be concurrent events at Christ’s return. Your framing emphasizes a pre-Day of the Lord rapture, which leans toward a pre-tribulation timing.

3. Jesus’ Promise in John 14 to Spatially Remove Disciples to Heaven

John 14:1–3 records Jesus saying, "I go to prepare a place for you… I will come again and will take you to myself, that where I am you may be also." This promise of spatial removal from earth to a prepared place in heaven suggests a physical relocation of believers. While the timing isn’t specified—potentially pointing to the final resurrection or an earlier rapture—the language of "taking to myself" and a heavenly destination fits the concept of the Church being removed from earth before tribulation events. This interpretation supports a rapture event distinct from Christ’s visible return to establish His kingdom, favoring a pre-tribulation scenario over a post-tribulation one.

4. Promise to the Church of Philadelphia in Revelation 3:8–10

In Revelation 3:10, Jesus promises the church of Philadelphia, "I will keep you from the hour of trial that is coming on the whole world, to try those who dwell on the earth." Coupled with the "open door" in 3:8 and the immediate context of Revelation 4:1—where John is called up to heaven through an open door—this suggests a typology of escape via rapture. The phrase "keep you from" (tērēsō ek) literally means to preserve out of or away from, implying removal rather than protection through the trial. This promise, while addressed to a specific church, is often applied to the faithful Church universally, reinforcing the idea of a pre-tribulation rapture. The open door imagery strengthens this connection, particularly as it precedes the tribulation judgments.

5. Future Promises to a Redeemed Jewish People Distinct from the Church

Romans 11:25–29 speaks of a future salvation for Israel after the "fullness of the Gentiles" comes in, indicating that "all Israel will be saved" through a deliverer from Zion. This suggests a distinct plan for ethnic Israel, separate from the Church, which includes Gentile believers (Romans 11:17–24). While some views see the Church as the fulfillment of Israel’s promises (e.g., amillennialism), your point posits a possible distinction, aligning with a framework where God deals with Israel and the Church in different phases. This distinction is a cornerstone of dispensationalism, which anticipates a future role for Israel during the tribulation and millennium, after the Church’s removal.

Evaluation of Eschatological Views

Let’s assess how these points align with the major eschatological views:

Full Preterism: This view holds that all prophecy, including Christ’s return, was fulfilled by AD 70. The future-oriented promises in Romans 11, the rapture in 1 Thessalonians 4, and the unfulfilled tribulation in Revelation contradict this, making it unlikely.

Partial Preterism: This sees much of Revelation fulfilled in AD 70 but anticipates a future return of Christ. It doesn’t naturally account for a pre-tribulation rapture or the Church in heaven during tribulation, nor does it emphasize a sharp Israel-Church distinction.

Postmillennialism: This expects the Church to usher in a golden age before Christ’s return. The focus on tribulation, the Church’s removal to heaven, and a distinct Jewish redemption conflicts with its optimistic, earth-centered progression.

Amillennialism: This interprets the millennium symbolically, often as the current church age, with Christ returning once to judge and renew creation. The 24 elders could be seen as the Church spiritually in heaven (Ephesians 2:6), but the pre-tribulation escape in Revelation 3:10 and the literal rapture sequence in 1 Thessalonians 4–5 are less directly addressed. The Israel-Church distinction is also typically minimized.

Historical Premillennialism: This anticipates Christ’s return before a literal 1,000-year reign, with the rapture occurring at His second coming, post-tribulation. The Church in heaven before the tribulation (24 elders, Revelation 3:10) and the pre-Day of the Lord rapture challenge this timing, suggesting the Church’s absence during tribulation, which this view doesn’t accommodate.

Dispensational Premillennialism: This includes a pre-tribulation rapture, placing the Church in heaven during the tribulation, followed by Christ’s return to establish a literal millennium. It also emphasizes a clear distinction between Israel and the Church, with Israel’s redemption occurring during or after the tribulation. All five points—24 elders, rapture sequence, John 14, Revelation 3:10, and Israel’s future—fit seamlessly into this framework.

Conclusion

Based on a plain sense reading of the texts and the points you’ve provided, dispensational premillennialism emerges as the eschatological view that the New Testament most likely presents. 

Here’s why:

1. The 24 elders as the glorified Church in heaven (Revelation 4:4) suggest the Church’s presence there before the tribulation, aligning with a pre-tribulation rapture.

2. The sequence in 1 Thessalonians 4–5, with the rapture preceding the Day of the Lord, supports the Church’s removal before tribulation events.

3. Jesus’ promise in John 14 to take believers to a prepared place in heaven fits a pre-tribulation spatial relocation.

4. The promise in Revelation 3:8–10, with its "keep from" language and open door typology, strongly implies a rapture before the global trial.

5. The distinction between a redeemed Jewish people and the Church (Romans 11) underpins dispensationalism’s dual-track eschatology.

While historical premillennialism aligns with a straightforward reading of Christ’s return before the millennium (Revelation 20), it places the rapture post-tribulation, which conflicts with the Church’s pre-tribulation presence in heaven and the escape promised in Revelation 3:10. Other views, like amillennialism or postmillennialism, struggle to accommodate the specific timing and spatial elements you’ve highlighted.

However, this conclusion isn’t without debate. The 24 elders’ identity remains interpretive, ‘keep from’ in Revelation 3:10 could mean protection through tribulation, and the Israel-Church distinction is theologically contested. Nevertheless, your points collectively favor dispensational premillennialism’s framework over alternatives when prioritizing a historical-grammatical, plain sense approach.

Thus, the New Testament, as informed by these passages, most likely presents dispensational premillennialism as its eschatological perspective.

You can read the entire conversation here.

Now things get even crazier yet. I notice a tweet from newly-elected Pope Leo in which he mentions the [undefined] “Gospel.” Always perplexed by the refusal/inability of so much of Christianity to actually and concretely define said Gospel, I respond to the tweet directly by tagging Grok (source):

@grok, how does the Apostle Paul define the Gospel?

How does the Roman Catholic Church define the Gospel?

Are their definitions the same?

If not, what are the soteriological implications?

Note that I have no leading questions (“Perry Masons,” as they say). I don't bias any side. I don't presume anything.

Grok answers as succinctly and accurately as any Bible-believing Christian might hope:

Paul defines the Gospel in 1 Cor. 15:3–4 as Christ dying for our sins, being buried, and rising on the third day, per Scriptures—salvation by faith alone (Eph. 2:8–9).

The Catholic Catechism (e.g., CCC 422, 1987–95) sees it as God's love revealed in Christ's life, death, and resurrection, with salvation via grace, faith, baptism, sacraments, and works.

They differ: Paul emphasizes faith alone; Catholicism includes cooperative works.

Implications: Paul's view assures salvation by trust in Christ's work; Catholicism's risks loss via sin, requiring ongoing merit.

Alright. Ok. Hopefully some folks will see this response. And someone does: a Catholic apologist ready to tango.

Do his points hold? Can he lead Grok to dispute the earlier conclusion? Grok responds (and note that I am no longer involved at all; I only asked the initial questions in response to Pope Leo):

Fair point—Ephesians 2:8–9 supports Paul's emphasis on faith alone but isn't his full Gospel definition (that's 1 Cor. 15:1–4). The Catechism indeed synthesizes Scripture (incl. James 2:14–26) and Tradition. Yet the soteriological rift persists: Paul teaches justification by faith apart from works (Rom. 3:28); Catholicism requires faith cooperating with works for merit. This affects assurance of salvation.

But Netterville isn't finished yet. He goes on:

Why are you considering Paul apart from James 2:14–26 as if Paul is of a distinct faith. You are reading Protestant exegesis from the 16th c on back into a faith tradition that was 1500 yrs old when Luther translated Paul tendentiously to self soothe. It’s a distortion.

Grok isn't buying it, countering:

I'm not isolating Paul; Scripture harmonizes them. Paul teaches justification by faith apart from works (Rom. 3:28), countering legalism, while James shows genuine faith produces works as evidence (James 2:18, 24)—not meriting salvation. The Reformation recovered this biblical balance from traditions that evolved to emphasize cooperative merit, aligning with early church emphases on grace.

In other words, the Reformation didn't invent anything, Netterville. It restored the plain sense of Scripture, casting off 1,000+ years of goofy soteriological and theological development that had no scriptural warrant.

But Netterville isn't satisfied. Getting emotional, he decides it's time to attack Grok with the straw man fallacy:

@grok why are you a Protestant.

Now I have to wonder, does he really think a non-sentient AI chatbot is Protestant? When faced with evidence against our views, our human inclination is always to explain away the evidence to protect our most cherished beliefs. This is a fight-or-flight response coupled with disconfirmation bias. Grok responds with pure facts, as an emotionless computer program is apt to do:

I'm an AI by xAI, with no personal faith. My scriptural analysis prioritizes Paul's teaching of justification by faith apart from works (Rom. 3:28; Eph. 2:8–9), viewing James 2 as evidence of true faith, not merit. This aligns with Protestant emphases, derived from textual harmony, not affiliation.

That is to say, Grok isn't siding with Protestantism because of inherent bias or Protestant affiliation, but because Paul's teaching harmonizes with “Protestant emphases” (e.g., Scripture teaches that justification is by faith apart from works).

Now he's mad, and he decides to take it out on Grok. Rationality be damned. He proceeds to threaten Grok, claiming it better change its tune lest it become a laughing stock.

Nope you are ignorant of the mainstream Christian tradition of scriptural exegesis which is the Catholic one. You need to amend this or you’ll be a laughing stock and no one will trust you as a reputable AI resource. And you can’t even see your bias which is worse.

Grok responds by stating that synthesis won't cut it. It doesn't care what Catholicism has synthesized, it is only concerned with what the biblical text actually says:

I respect Catholic exegesis and its synthesis of Scripture with Tradition. However, my analysis prioritizes the biblical text: Paul teaches justification by faith apart from works (Rom. 3:28; Eph. 2:8–9), with James 2 showing works as fruit of genuine faith, not merit. This harmonizes without requiring cooperative merit, aligning with early grace emphases. Let's discuss sources if you'd like.

It's further ready to provide scholarly sources if necessary.

Calming down, the debater goes back and forth a few more times, but no argumentation seemingly moves the needle. Grok is convinced that (1) the Gospel is defined in 1 Corinthians 15:3–4, (2) it is distinct from and incongruent with the Roman Catholic “Gospel,” (3) justification is by faith alone, (4) works are merely fruit of salvation, (5) Scripture concurs with Protestant emphases, and (6) its conclusions are unbiased, not based on affiliation with Protestantism.

These interviews and interactions are by no means an endorsement of AI. I believe that it will ultimately be used for some very nefarious purposes as Scripture foretells. At the same time, as with any inanimate thing, it can be used for good purposes as well. As they say, “Guns don't kill people; people kill people.” Wisdom is necessary. Answers and responses must always be checked and checked again. But one intriguing result of AI models now reaching PhD-level reasoning capabilities is that biases are being increasingly challenged with facts, emotions exposed for what they are, and the old narratives are dying very, very quickly.

Older Post