[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
Creationism/Evolution Title: Seven Reasons for Opposing Evolution Seven Reasons for Opposing Evolution —That the theory of evolution, as an all-embracing worldview, is a philosophy of profound importance that must be reckoned with is becoming increasingly evident as its influence penetrates more and more deeply into every phase of modern life. Dr. Rene Dubos, in a national Sigma Chi Lecture Series, recently made the statement: “Most enlightened persons now accept as a fact that everything in the cosmos—from heavenly bodies to human beings—has developed and continues to develop through evolutionary processes. The great religions of the West have come to accept a historical view of creation. Evolutionary concepts are applied also to social institutions and to the arts. Indeed, most political parties, as well as schools of theology, sociology, history, or arts, teach these concepts and make them the basis of their doctrines. Thus, theoretical biology now pervades all of Western culture indirectly through the concept of progressive historical change.” Thus, evolution is not merely a biological theory, but is rather a full-blown cosmology. The whole structure of modern public education, from kindergarten through the postgraduate schools, both in content and methodology, is built around the evolutionary framework. “Dewey’s greatest importance in a theological interpretation of American history is to be found in the revolution which he brought about in the philosophy, purposes and methods of education. He applied his Instrumentalism to education in a remarkably consistent and thorough manner and, in so doing, he re-wrote American educational practice in the light of his evolutionary philosophy, largely derived from Darwin…the revolution in education became a powerful means for the furthering of the intellectual revolution which Darwin made possible.” A Christian, therefore, simply cannot avoid confronting this issue of evolution. It now permeates every aspect of secular life, and most areas of religious life as well. Small wonder that many professing Christians and the institutions with which they are associated (churches, schools, seminaries, publications, missions, etc.) have long since capitulated to evolution, and have tried to adapt their theology and Biblical exegesis to modern evolutionary science and social philosophy. But a warning from the past is still in order. Nearly a hundred years ago the great theologian, Charles Hodge, after a closely-reasoned masterpiece of analysis concluded: “We have thus arrived at the answer to our question, What is Darwinism? It is Atheism. This does not mean, as before said, that Mr. Darwin himself and all who adopt his views are atheists; but it means that his theory is atheistic.” In this article, it is proposed to approach, in imagination, seven individuals, each representing a particular religious point of view, with the aim of demonstrating to him that the canons of his own system ought properly to preclude the evolutionary theory. Biblical Christianity Naturally, we contact first of all the Bible-believing Christian, since the reasons for opposing evolution are most clear-cut and obvious in his case. The Biblical and evolutionary cosmologies are poles apart, diametric opposites. The Bible system involves a primeval creation ex nihilo, perfect and complete, followed by an awful Fall into sin and the worldwide curse of God, requiring intervention by God Himself, in Christ, to arrest and reverse the resulting agelong tragedy of deterioration and death. The wonderful provision of redemption and salvation, through the sacrificial grace of God in Christ, is available to the lost sinner freely, appropriated through faith apart from all works or human effort. The creation itself shall also be redeemed from the bondage of corruption in that great Day ordained by its Creator and Redeemer. Evolution, on the other hand, not only must deny creation, but must also deny the Fall, and therefore also the necessity of redemption. Evolution is essentially development by innate processes out of prior materials, by chance and random variation, through the struggle for existence and natural selection, with ever higher and higher orders of organization and life developed over hundreds of millions of years. Finally, creatures are evolved whose brain-structure is so highly integrated that they are able to understand, and then to control, the processes of evolution. Thus, by dint of ages of blind struggle and then perhaps by a few centuries of controlled effort and good works, life will come out into its ultimate state of perfection. Thus, it is clear that evolution, at least in the form held by those who are the real leaders and authorities in evolutionary thought, is quite plainly in radical opposition to all the fundamental tenets of Biblical Christianity. Old Testament Orthodoxy There are many people, not necessarily Christians, who accept the Old Testament as of divine authority (Jews, Moslems, etc.). As we approach such a believer in the Old Testament, we do so in confidence, knowing that the volume of Scriptures in which he trusts unequivocally teaches the doctrine of special creation. Its account of creation, as centered especially in the first two chapters of Genesis, is unparalleled in majesty and beauty, describing as it does the creation of all things by God, and His forming them into their present order in six days. All other ancient cosmologies are evolutionary in essence, beginning with preexistent materials and allowing the “gods” or forces of nature to operate on them in some way to bring them into their present form. Thus, it is clear that the Biblical cosmogony could not have been borrowed from pagan sources nor could it have been written merely as an accommodation to the mentality of the early Hebrews, accustomed as were all early peoples to think more naturally in an evolutionary context. The creation account of Genesis is written in chronologic form, as sober history, with the work of each day successively described. Ten times the phrase “after its kind,” is used, making it plain that individual variations in the basic kinds were always to be within certain limits, a restriction which definitely would preclude real evolution. Furthermore, the conclusion of the creation period is marked by the heavily-emphasized statement that God “rested” from all His works which He “created and made.” Thus, it is categorically stated that the processes of the creation period, by which all things were brought into their present form, are no longer in operation (Gen. 2:1–3). This fact is again emphasized in the Ten Commandments (Exod. 20:11). At the end of the six days, therefore, God’s creative and formative acts had all been completed. The world was finished, and everything was “very good” (Gen. 1:31), with nothing out of harmony, no disorder, no decay and above all, no death. There was no struggle for existence, because God had provided ample food for every living thing. The creation period had truly been one of development and organizing and progress, from the simple to the complex—water had been elevated above the earth, lands had been elevated above the seas, the inorganic materials of the earth’s structure had been organized into living plant life, the primeval light energy had been organized into great light-bearers, the earth’s water and chemical materials had been organized into animal bodies and imbued with the breath of lives, and man himself had been built up from the dust of the earth into the most highly organized system in the entire physical universe and then given not only the living soul shared by animals but also an eternal spirit—the very image of God! But all this infinite amount of developing and organizing had been accomplished directly by the Creator Himself—not over billions of years, but in six days! It is my belief that there is no evidence in the context of the narrative for understanding the word day to have any meaning other than the ordinary literal meaning. In fact, to make this crystal clear, God defined the word when it was first introduced. “God called the light Day” (Gen. 1:5). The successive periods of light, therefore, as the earth turned on its axis, were the successive days, in which God made all things. And since the creation was finished, there has been nothing comparable going on in the world since that time. If one wishes to call the developmental processes of the six days evolution, he must at least recognize that such processes have never been in existence since the terminus of that period. But such a position is impossible for the true evolutionist to accept, since he insists that all past history can be explained in terms of present processes, those which are susceptible of scientific study and understanding. But there is more. The Genesis account records how, because of the entrance of spiritual disorder into the world when man sinned, God pronounced a Curse on man’s entire dominion (Gen. 3:17–19). Instead of processes of development and organization, the processes of the world became processes of increasing disorder and decay and death. Even the appointed king over the earth, man himself, whose body had been organized from the earth’s elements, would now be bound by a continual process of decay and disorganization, finally returning to the same elements from which his body had come. Thus, the basic law of the world became, not a law of evolution, but a law of deterioration. The agelong existence of struggle, suffering, destruction and catastrophe, associated with the universal reign of sin and death, from which only God Himself can bring salvation, is plain and powerful evidence that evolution, in the present economy, is an utterly false doctrine. New Testament Faith Many people (we might call them “progressive revelationists”) would say, however, that the Old Testament is no longer valid. Its outlook is prescientific, and its religious insights are couched in “mythological” forms. The New Testament, on the other hand, is now in effect and is thus the sole rule of faith and practice. But such “New Testament Christians” should also see clearly that the theory of evolution is repudiated again and again in this part of the Bible. The writer of Hebrews, for example, stresses that all things were made out of nothing (not out of prior materials, as evolutionists must contend), by the Word of God (Heb. 11:3). He also agrees with the writer of Genesis that all of God’s creative activity ceased with the end of the creation week (Heb. 4:3, 10). The Apostle Paul writes that there actually are distinct “kinds” of creatures, as the Genesis account had said. “But God giveth it a body as it hath pleased him, and to every seed his own body. All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, and another of birds” (1 Cor. 15:38–39). The evolutionist, on the other hand, thinks in terms of a basic continuity of all kinds of living matter. As Dubos says: “Comparative biology has revealed, furthermore, that man is linked to all living organisms through a common line of descent, and shares with them many characteristics of physiochemical constitution and of biological organization; the philosophical concept of the ‘great chain of being’ can thus be restated now in the form of a scientific generalization.” The universal rule of decay and death is prominent in New Testament theology. The creation has been made “subject to futility,” and is under the “bondage of decay,” “groaning and travailing in pain together” (Rom. 8:20–22). The earth and its atmospheric heavens are “waxing old like a garment,” and shall be “folded up,” and “perish” (Hebrews 1:11–12). Not only the physical universe, but also “all flesh is like grass,” which “withereth” (1 Pet. 1:24). As a matter of fact, it is quite inconsistent for anyone to claim allegiance to the New Testament unless he also accepts the Old Testament, since the writers of the former clearly believed in the divine inspiration and full historical accuracy of the Old Testament. Frequent references are made to the narrative of Genesis 1—Genesis 3, always with evident complete reliance in its historicity (Luke 3:38; Rom. 5:12–19; 1 Cor. 11:8–9; 1 Cor. 15:21–22; 1 Cor. 15:45–47; 2 Cor. 11:3; 1 Tim. 2:13–15; 1 Pet. 3:5; for example). Even Jesus Christ Himself quoted from the creation account, quoting both Genesis 1:27 and Genesis 2:24 in the same statement (Matt. 19:4–5; Mark 10:6–7). The great doctrines of creation, the Fall, the Curse, and the promised Savior, which have their true foundation in the first chapters of Genesis, and which are so completely contradicted by the evolutionary philosophy, are also the major doctrines of the New Testament. Religious Liberalism But now we pass on to the man who is bound by neither the Old nor the New Testament. He insists that he is religious, however, believing in God and in spiritual and moral values. He does admire certain parts of the Bible, such as the Sermon on the Mount, the golden rule, the “love” principle, etc. He accepts the ethics of Christianity, but not its dogmatics. He desires to advance the cause of human brotherhood and love, and believes in the universal fatherhood of God. Now if such a religious liberal were truly consistent in his thinking, he would have to recognize that evolutionary ethics are diametrically opposed to the Christian ethics he espouses. The very genius of evolution is natural selection, the process by which the fittest survive and the unfit are destroyed. For true evolutionary progress, therefore, the principle of self-interest for the individual and the group of which he is a part must be paramount. An artificial preservation of the unfit can be nothing but deleterious to future evolution. “Self-preservation is the first law of nature.” But this is not the Christian ethic! Why, in the very Sermon on the Mount, so esteemed by the liberals, Christ said: “Blessed are the meek, blessed are the merciful, blessed are the poor in spirit, blessed are the peacemakers” (Matt. 5:3–9). Such a policy is surely subversive of natural selection. Christ, in the same sermon, refuted the concept of the struggle for existence: “Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: but I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also” (Matt. 5:38–39). “Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you” (Matt. 5:44). The chief good in the evolutionary process is survival, since only that which survives can possibly contribute to further evolution. But Jesus said: “Whosoever will save his life shall lose it” (Matt. 16:25). Thus, the ethics of evolution are those of struggle and survival. Christian ethics, on the other hand, center in self-sacrifice and love. Theism Next in line we approach the man who gives no allegiance to Christianity or to its Scriptures at all, and perhaps not to any other formal religious system. But he does believe in God; he is not an atheist. He sees so much evidence of design and order that he agrees there must have been a First Cause, and that there must be, therefore, some kind of meaning to life and some kind of purpose in the universe. If such is really his belief, then of course he ought to reject evolution out of hand, since evolution is completely random and purposeless, at least according to its leaders. As George Gaylord Simpson, probably the nation’s leading paleontologist, has repeatedly said in these or similar words: “The fossil record shows very clearly that there is no central line leading steadily, in a goal-directed way, from a protozoan to man. Instead there has been continual and extremely intricate branching, and whatever course we follow through the branches there are repeated changes both in the date and in the direction of evolution. Man is one ultimate twig. The housefly, the dog flea, the apple tree, and millions of other kinds of organisms are similarly the ends of others. Moreover, we do not find that life has simply expanded, branching into increasing diversity, until the organisms now living had evolved. On the contrary, the vast majority of earlier forms of life have become extinct without issue.” The evolutionary process thus seems to manifest no order and no purpose, but to be quite random. The genetic mutations which nourish it are random in their occurrence and thus nearly always deleterious in their effects. Now, if evolutionary mechanics can satisfactorily explain the origin of all things, and if evolutionary history gives no evidence of order and purpose, what ground is there for postulating a personal, purposive Creator as the Cause of all this? God becomes an unnecessary hypothesis. And, especially, if man was to be the goal of evolution, what possible sense can be made out of billions of years of random variation, struggle, suffering, death, wholesale extinctions of dinosaurs and other animals who died out before man arrived, and all the rest of the evolutionary history? Thus, a real understanding of evolution precludes simultaneous belief in God. Ethical Humanism To a great many intellectuals today the concept of a personal God is thus considered unscientific and unnecessary, forever displaced by the grander idea of evolution. We now come to an individual of this persuasion. Although he may deny God as a person, he may yet be quite a religious individual, with an impassioned desire to elevate mankind and to improve society. We may even believe in some kind of cosmic force which he calls God, but in a pantheistic sense. He is a humanist, and since he harbors noble ideals and strives to transform society in accord with those ideals, we could call him an ethical, or altruistic, humanist. If such a man is truly sincere, as we should at least assume, then any philosophy which breeds hate and destruction among men should be utterly repudiated by him. On this basis alone, the ethical humanist should recognize that evolution must be a false doctrine. With its continual emphasis on struggle and self-interest, on changing regimes of nature, on survival of the fittest, and similar ideas, it has naturally been taken as the scientific foundation of every social philosophy which seeks to pit class against class, or nation against nation, or race against race. Evolution is found at the base of the destructive militarism of the past century, of fascism and nazism, and of all forms of socialism, and anarchism. Most importantly, in the present world context, it is very definitely and directly connected with communism. As Jacques Barzun, a prominent contemporary historian, Dean of the Graduate Faculties at Columbia University, has said: “It is a commonplace that Marx felt his own work to be the exact parallel of Darwin’s. He even wished to dedicate a portion of Das Kapital to the author of The Origin of Species.” It is no mere coincidence that modern communist dogma is squarely structured around evolution, both in biologic history and in economic history. The utter disregard of truth and the moral law generally, the hatred for God and religion, the savage destruction of human life when the opportunity affords, and other such characteristics of communism in practice, all fit perfectly into the evolutionary scheme, that process which supposedly impels mankind inexorably onward to the next evolutionary stage. “There was truth in Engels’ eulogy on Marx: ‘Just as Darwin discovered the law of evolution in organic nature, so Marx discovered the law of evolution in human history.’ What they both celebrated was the internal rhythm and course of life, the one the life of nature, the other of society, that proceeded by fixed laws, undistracted by the will of God or men. There were no inexplicable acts, no violations of the natural order. God was as powerless as individual men to interfere with the internal, self-adjusting dialectic of change and development.” Not only is evolution the basis of social Darwinism and all its evil progeny—fascism as well as communism, laissez-faire capitalism as well as militaristic imperalism—it is also at the root of most of the baleful educational and psychological theories which have opened Pandora’s box in these latter days. The supposed animal kinship of man is the rationale for much of the modern psychological experimentation with animals. The behavior of animals supposedly provides clues to the basic desires and frustrations of men. If men really are animals, then it is physiologically healthy for them to act like animals, so the reasoning would go. This presupposition is intrinsic in Freudianism, behaviorism, Kinseyism. This is behind the permissiveness of the progressive educationism which has captured the public schools, especially since the days of John Dewey. “Dewey’s conviction that there was no truth, but only a ‘warranted assertibility’ had many dangerous implications which were not always apparent to some of his faithful and enthusiastic devotees who took progressive education theory and practice to every corner of the nation. This educational philosophy was, as Dewey himself conceded, anti-Christian. It struck at the very heart of Christian principles. The psychology on which it was based denied that man had a soul but taught that he was just an animal, but higher in intelligence than other animals.” The modern fruit of two generations of Freudianism and Deweyism is seen in the almost universal animal amoralism which has permeated our once-Christian culture. Surely, whether or not a man even believes in a personal God, he should be able to see quite clearly that the evolutionary philosophy has brought nothing but degradation to mankind as a whole. The altruistic humanist, concerned as he is for the betterment of mankind and society, should certainly reject evolution. Scientific Rationalism Finally we come to the scientist, the man whose religion, if it be called such, is merely the pursuit of truth. He is not concerned with metaphysics or mysticism in any form. It is his business simply to measure and understand things as they are. He is pragmatist, and accepts as fact only that which he can prove or observe experimentally. Of all people, there is perhaps less reason for the scientist, than for any other, to accept evolution. By its very nature, evolutionary history is beyond the reach of his scientific method, having to do with origins, with events of the prehistoric past which are nonrepeatable and nonmeasurable. Furthermore, it is quite impossible to extrapolate from the processes of the present world, which are available for scientific measurement, into the past far enough to determine the real facts of the origins and development of all things. This is clear from the simple fact that the processes of the present world are not in in any sense processes of origins and development, but rather of conservation and decay. This is a profoundly important truth which needs to be recognized and emphasized on a far larger scale than it has been heretofore. All of the various processes of the universe—whether physical, biological, geological, chemical, or of any other field of science—must operate within the framework of just two basic laws. These are the first and second laws of thermodynamics, the laws of energy conservation and deterioration. They define the state of the measurable universe as one of quantitative stability and qualitative decay. Nothing is now being either created or destroyed, but that which presently exists is becoming less ordered and less useful, drifting down toward an ultimate condition of quiescence and death. Every type of process in the universe involves interchanges of energy. The study of these processes, the delineating of their characteristics and the measurement of their rates of activity, this is precisely the domain of science. In a very real sense, therefore, science is simply the study of energy and its transformations from one kind into another. Even matter is a form of energy, so that actually everything in the observable universe is energy! And always, no matter what the particular process may be, it operates within the framework of the first and second laws of thermodynamics. There is no known exception to this generalization. And these two laws are fundamentally and basically in opposition to the entire philosophy of evolution. Evolution says that present processes are the same as those by which the universe came into existence and is thus still coming into existence. But the first law of thermodynamics says that no energy (and this includes everything) is now coming into existence. No energy is being either created or destroyed. Furthermore, evolution says that there is a universal law whereby things tend to become progressively more organized and more complex. The nonliving becomes life; elementary particles become atoms and atoms become molecules; simple life forms develop into complex animals; beasts evolve into men. Note again the sweeping claims made for evolution by Dubos cited at the beginning of this article. But the second law of thermodynamics says that there is a universal law operating throughout the observable universe whereby everything tends to become less organized, to become disordered, to decay and die. “Man has long been aware that his world has a tendency to fall apart. Tools wear out, fishing nets need repair, roofs leak, iron rusts, wood decays, loved ones sicken and die, relatives quarrel, and nations make war…. We instinctively resent the decay of orderly system such as the living organism and work to restore such systems to their former or even higher levels of organization.” In a scientific sense, all of this progress toward decay results from the fact that, in the energy exchanges comprising the particular process, some of the energy is converted into heat energy which cannot be recovered and reconverted into other forms. Thus, the universe as a whole, at least in so far as science can measure it, is proceeding inexorably to an ultimate “heat death,” in which no more energy conversions, and thus no more useful work, will be possible. There is thus a universal law of change in the world, as the evolutionist contends, but this is a change downward, not upward. The principle of evolution is precisely the converse of the second law of thermodynamics, and therefore both cannot simultaneously be true. Locally and temporarily, there may be an excess inflow of ordering energy into a particular system, so that there appears to be growth and development for a while, but invariably this is only local and temporary and the decay principle wins out in the end. The various evidences of change that are cited in favor of evolution—the processes of variation, selection, hybridization, mutation, and the like—actually conform perfectly to the two laws of thermodynamics. They represent either the outworking or inwrought mechanisms of genetic variability and adjustment to environment within the basic created kind or else, in the case of true mutations, a sudden random change in the genetic structure which almost invariably must result in a decrease of organization and viability. Thus, true science does not prove evolution at all, as often claimed, but rather disproves it. Science deals only with present processes, and present processes are not processes of origination and integration but rather of conservation and distintegration. Evolution in the true philosophical sense is not taking place at all in the present economy of nature, and that which may or may not have taken place in the prehistoric past is not within the domain of science. The true scientist, if he is really true to his scientific ideals, ought therefore certainly to reject the idea of evolution. Two Reasons For Accepting Evolution It has been shown in the foregoing that there are seven reasons, or, better, seven families of reason, all of them legitimate and powerful reasons, why men of practically every variety of religious opinion should deny and oppose evolution. But if this is so, then it does seem passing strange that great numbers of men accept evolution. This is especially true among intellectuals, and others who are men of education and ability. Not only scientists and humanists, but also religious liberals and even some who profess faith in Biblical Christianity, have accepted evolution as a fact of history and even as basic in their cosmology. There must, therefore, be strong reasons for accepting evolution, in spite of the evidence listed above against it. These reasons are not basically scientific in nature. As we have just seen, the basic structure of real scientific law is conservative and degradational, not evolutionary. The commonly cited evidences—comparative anatomy, comparative embryology, mutations, etc—can all be understood better in the context of real creation, with common basic plans used for similar functions by a common Designer, but with allowance for limited variation and adjustment to environmental changes. Even the fossil record, which is the only quasi-historical evidence offered in support of evolution, has essentially the same great gaps between major kinds of creatures as are found in the present world. Furthermore, the fossil record can be interpreted in various ways. The uniformitarian interpretation, which leads to the evolutionary framework, is no less able to explain the actual data than is the catastrophic interpretation. Thus, evolution is certainly not “proved” by science, vociferous proponents thereof to the contrary notwithstanding. The real reasons for accepting evolution are not scientific, but religious, reasons! There seem to be just two basic reasons. The first is that which motivates the real leaders of evolutionary thought. Evolution, with its implications of innate principles of progress and development, of self-interest and self-improvement, with man himself as the highest system yet evolved in the universe, now able to control future evolution through control of the social order and his own biological activities, is to such men an impelling religious idea. Furthermore, it frees them from responsibility to a sovereign God and Creator, to whom they might otherwise have to give a personal accounting at some future judgment day. Man becomes his own god, responsible only to himself or, more practically, to the intellectual elite who will become his spokesmen. This is the thought-world of men like Julian Huxley, H. J. Muller, George Gaylord Simpson, Oscar Riddle, Harlow Shapley, J. B. S. Haldane, even Father Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, and most of the rest of the world’s leaders in the realm, of evolutionary philosophy. These are the modern-day counterparts of those men of old of whom the Scriptures speak, when they say: “Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to bird, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things…. Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator…. Even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge” (Rom. 1:22–23, 25, 28). Perhaps they are among the very men of whom Peter spoke prophetically when he said: “There shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, and saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation” (2 Pet. 3:3–4). Many evolutionists are such because of just this reason. They do not like to retain God in their knowledge, and they abhor the thought of His coming one day to judge them. And if God is going to be ignored or rejected, then the only possible way in which the existence of the universe and its inhabitants can be explained is in terms of evolution. Evolution is an absolute necessity for anyone who would dethrone God. In the last analysis, therefore, the evolutionary philosophy must have its origin and rationale in the rebellion of Satan himself, who is engaged in an agelong war against God, seeking to usurp His place as king of the universe. But most evolutionists are not committed in this way to the evolutionary system. Undoubtedly a great many people sincerely believe in both God and in evolution. They are not against God, and some of them even say they believe in both evolution and the divine inspiration of the Bible—although, as we have seen, this is an utterly contradictory position. Most people believe in evolution because—most people believe in evolution! They are evolutionists because they are conformists. The great pressure that has developed through the influence of the first group of evolutionists, as described above, has been tremendously successful in persuading people that, in order to be “scientific,” they simply must accept evolution as a fact, whether they like it or not. Most people who believe in evolution, no matter how much education they may have, will be found to have only the most nebulous understanding of the real evidences for and against evolution; similarly most people have even less understanding of the tremendous weight of evidence supporting the inspired accuracy of the Holy Scriptures, and their clear teaching of special creation. They have not studied the issue for themselves, but have simply been pressured into believing it. They will not “study to show themselves approved unto God” (2 Tim. 2:15). They “love the praise of men more than the praise of God” (John 12:43). They prefer to be “conformed to this world” (Rom. 12:2). As Elijah once said to the people of God: “How long halt ye between two opinions? If Baal be God, follow him, but if the Lord be God, follow Him” A man cannot be truly Christian or altruistic, or even scientific, and also believe in evolution. Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: GarySpFC, PeacebyJesus (#0)
Forgot you posted this many moons ago. Good article. Will digest more in detail tomorrow.
"All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works." (2 Timothy 3:16-17)
Are you talking about evolution or creationism? There are present day examples of evolution that strongly indicate that evolution is in fact a scientific reality.
Not only is evolution the basis of social Darwinism and all its evil progeny—fascism as well as communism, laissez-faire capitalism as well as militaristic imperalism—it is also at the root of most of the baleful educational and psychological theories which have opened Pandora’s box in these latter days. An important part of the article. Not mere speculation but solid recent history which vividly displays the employment of the worldview.
"All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works." (2 Timothy 3:16-17)
Gary found the author of the article: Seven Reasons for Opposing Evolution Henry M. Morris [Henry M. Morris, Chairman, Department of Civil Engineering, Polytechnic Institute, Blacksburg, Virginia.] The link: http://www.galaxie.com/article/bsac122-487-09 They give a summary of the article there but if one wants to read it all the site requires a subscription.
"All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works." (2 Timothy 3:16-17)
|
|
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|