The civilized world has all but accepted Evolution as the answer. It is the starting place for most. It is a given. You have to work from there. If, for instance, you hold, "I'm a Christian and I believe the Bible", then you'll need to defend Genesis. "How does that correlate with Evolution?" It's often the first question you'll get. You see, Evolution is true and we work from there.
On the other hand, polls of American views seem to disagree. One such survey in 2005 said that some 51% of Americans still believed that God created humans, while 30% held that God controlled Evolution to make us what we are today. Only 15% held that God had nothing to do with it. A more recent study says that the 15% is now up to 61%, apparently as a backlash against the insurgence of the "Intelligent Design" movement. Astonishingly, nearly 40% still hold to a Young-Earth Creation view.
We could account for that by sheer stupidity, I suppose. If we were more charitable, we'd likely say that it's the product of the unfair sway of Christianity in America. Richard Dawkins considers faith a "virus of the mind". It's a sickness, a malfunction, something that ought to be treated and eliminated because, well, it's bad. And while stupidity (people that don't actually think about it) and upbringing may account for some of it, I have to wonder if there aren't actual reasons to question Darwinian Evolution as fact. I'd like to suggest a couple of possibilities.
The first reason to question the prevailing scientific position is that the prevailing scientific position questions itself. No, I'm not talking about the word "Theory" that is included in "the Theory of Evolution." I get that the materialists of our day don't see this as a "theory" as in a possible idea, but rather a "scientific theory" as in a given premise from which to operate. No, I'm talking about science. If science is based on what can be tested and proven, then science is having a problem with Evolution. First, there was that whole "Darwin's finches" thing. Darwin observed what he considered to be proof that finches on the Galapagos Islands demonstrated Survival of the Fittest by observing the changes in beaks as environment changed. What science later discovered (and Darwin missed) was that the beaks changed back as environment changed back. Thus, it was evidence of adaptability (so-called "microevolution") but not a shift to new species (some call it "macroevolution"). Anyone can see microevolution, but that whole macroevolution thing (the core of Darwinian Evolution) isn't really working. (Of course, the fact that Evolutionists still point to the finches as proof suggests a problem, doesn't it? I mean, if the experimental evidence disproves the premise, don't you discard it? No, apparently not.) Another famous proof was Haeckel's drawings of embryos. You see, it proved that human embryos looked just like every other embryo. Of course, even in his day it was known that Haeckel fudged his drawings. Even Stephen Jay Gould, an evolutionary biologist, agreed that the drawings were false and misleading. What proof, then, do we have of Evolution? Well, there is the whole fossil record, you know. Oh, wait, that's a problem, isn't it? While Darwin argued for a gradual transition, paleontologists shot that down. The fossil record, instead, argues for long periods of no change with sudden, radical shifts. Thus, the so-called "Cambrian Explosion", where most of the major groups of complex animals seemed to suddenly appear. It is odd, however, that, as in the case of Darwin's finches and Haeckel's embryos, most textbooks (and Evolutionists) seem to ignore the fact that the data disagrees with the conclusions. And there are other problems. Science has tried for decades to reproduce Evolution in the lab. Can they create life in a test tube? Can they demonstrate Evolution in fruit flies? Well, no, apparently. All the efforts have failed. Despite early success in creating amino acids in the laboratory, they haven't been able to get to actual proteins. And, although they can alter the genetics of fruit flies to produce variations, none of the variations were good variations. It would seem scientifically that if the data disagrees with the hypothesis (in this case, Evolution), then the hypothesis should be questioned (if not discarded). Face it. Evolution cannot be tested and proven.
The second reason to question the prevailing scientific position is that the ramifications are terrifying. Given "All that is occurred by physical means" (eliminating the God hypothesis out of hand) and "Survival of the Fittest", we come to some horrendous but unavoidable conclusions. First, we human beings are simply a step in Evolution. We are biochemical bags, our brains simply computers of meat. What we do, choose, think, feel -- all is a program installed over time by Evolution. Your ideas of "human value" and "free will", of "higher consciousness", "creativity", "emotion", they're all false perceptions. We're just machines. The things that exist in our minds and perceptions today are products of Evolution, themselves part of that collection known as "the fittest" because, well, they have survived. Your values and even that quaint concept of "morality" are not real; they are convenient lies you tell yourself, the actual product of physical forces through time. And that whole "God" thing is in the same category. "Evolutionary Psychology", the analysis of human psychology through the Evolutionary lens, tells us that it is our genes that make us selfish. What makes a young mother kill her baby? It's in our DNA. Rape is simply based in biology which is based in Evolution. In short, Evolution explains ... and excuses ... all human behavior. We do what we do because we're programmed to do it. There is no "right or wrong", no morality. Truth is simply what works for you. All well and good, and it should give you the shivers to even think about, but in this is another reason to question Evolution. It's not actually simply because the conclusions are terrifying. It's that they don't work in every day life. You see, if what you hold as true doesn't actually work, you have to question if it's true -- or, like so many devout Evolutionists, settle for a contradictory perception. "Sure, it's a lie, but it's a good lie. No, there are no real values, dreams, hopes, virtue, no real purpose for humans, but we must live as if there are."
Science likes to tell us it's right and we who have "faith" are dreamers not dealing with reality. There are, however, reasons to question the prevailing worldview of Evolution (I've only listed two -- there are more) and, frankly, Christianity is not without reason or evidence. So, is it really true that we are the ones who are not dealing with reality? When "Science" refuses to admit to the evidence or live by its own standards, is it really wise to hang onto it as today's "god"?
13 comments:
Good points. Christians have all sorts of evidence to point to -- historical, cosmological, teleological, moral, logical, etc. -- but the Darwinists try to stack the deck with a self-defeating rule that only "scientific" evidence counts (even though they can't use science to prove that only scientific evidence should be considered).
Have you read this quote by GK Chesterton?:
One of my first journalistic adventures, or misadventures, concerned a comment on Grant Allen, who had written a book about the Evolution of the Idea of God. I happened to remark that it would be much more interesting if God wrote a book about the evolution of the idea of Grant Allen. And I remember that the editor objected to my remark on the ground that it was blasphemous; which naturally amused me not a little. For the joke of it was, of course, that it never occurred to him to notice the title of the book itself, which really was blasphemous; for it was, when translated into English, 'I will show you how this nonsensical notion that there is a God grew up among men.' My remark was strictly pious and proper; confessing the divine purpose even in its most seemingly dark or meaningless manifestations. In that hour I learned many things, including the fact that there is something purely acoustic in much of that agnostic sort of reverence. The editor had not seen the point, because in the title of the book the long word came at the beginning and the short word at the end; whereas in my comment the short word came at the beginning and gave him a sort of shock. I have noticed that if you put a word like God into the same sentence with a word like dog, these abrupt and angular words affect people like pistol-shots. Whether you say that God made the dog or the dog made God does not seem to matter; that is only one of the sterile disputations of the too subtle theologians. But so long as you begin with a long word like evolution the rest will roll harmlessly past; very probably the editor had not read the whole of the title, for it is rather a long title and he was rather a busy man.
But this little incident has always lingered in my mind as a sort of parable. Most modern histories of mankind begin with the word evolution, and with a rather wordy exposition of evolution, for much the same reason that operated in this case. There is something slow and soothing and gradual about the word and even about the idea. As a matter of fact it is not, touching these primary things, a very practical word or a very profitable idea. Nobody can imagine how nothing could turn into something. Nobody can get an inch nearer to it by explaining how something could turn into something else. It is really far more logical to start by saying 'In the beginning God created heaven and earth' even if you only mean 'In the beginning some unthinkable power began some unthinkable process.' For God is by its nature a name of mystery, and nobody ever supposed that man could imagine how a world was created any more than he could create one. But evolution really is mistaken for explanation. It has the fatal quality of leaving on many minds the impression that they do understand it and everything else; just as many of them live under a sort of illusion that they have read the Origin of Species.
But this notion of something smooth and slow like the ascent of a slope, is a great part of the illusion. It is an illogically as well as an illusion; for slowness has really nothing to do with the question. An event is not any more intrinsically intelligible or unintelligible because of the pace at which it moves. For a man who does not believe in a miracle, a slow miracle would be just as incredible as a swift one. The Greek witch may have turned sailors to swine with a stroke of the wand. But to see a naval gentleman of our acquaintance looking a little more like a pig every day, till he ended with four trotters and a curly tail would not be any more soothing. It might be rather more creepy and uncanny. The medieval wizard may have flown through the air from the top of a tower; but to see an old gentleman walking through the air in a leisurely and lounging manner, would still seem to call for some explanation. Yet there runs through all the rationalistic treatment of history this curious and confused idea that difficulty is avoided or even mystery eliminated, by dwelling on mere delay or on something dilatory in the processes of things. There will be something to be said upon particular examples elsewhere; the question here is the false atmosphere of facility and ease given by the mere suggestion of going slow; the sort of comfort that might be given to a nervous old woman traveling for the first time in a motor-car.
The problem with your arguments is that you ignore the emotional aspect of evolution. It's a very comforting belief system and world view, because it says that whatever you do is just fine. There is no accountability, and no one can hold you to some clearly arbitrary standard of behavior. It gives a complete carte blanche for unmitigated selfishness, and when you do something that you perceive to be un-selfish, then you can pat yourself on the back all the more for resisting your base genetic impulses.
It's exactly the problem of rebellion against God. By refusing to acknowledge even the possibility of God, evolution gives the clearest path toward unmitigated selfishness in thought, feeling, and behavior. And that has a tremendous emotional attachment. Selfishness is terribly attractive, and it's quite a part of the natural state of man. Thus to give any sort of credence to a worldview that holds that there IS a God and some specter of accountability...well, that has to be vociferously counter-attacked. I've been the subject of it myself, and without a doubt the anger and emotional vindictiveness directed by evolutionists against Christians or even proponents of intelligent design is really striking. Just look at the documentary "Expelled" and see who is the most emotional in the interviews: the evolutionists or the ID scientists? Telling, I think.
Science PhD Mom,
(What a pleasure it is to hear truth from a science PhD on this topic.)
You're right. The argument for Evolution is designed first and foremost as an argument against God. Any excuse in a storm, so to speak, to let sinful humans do what sinful humans want to do. It is, in fact, the presupposition ("I want to do what I want to do") that makes the argument instead of the other way around -- "The evidence forces me to conclude that it's right."
but the Darwinists try to stack the deck with a self-defeating rule that only "scientific" evidence counts
And by 'scientific' they mean 'only evidence which does not point toward or allow for a design'. Not so much 'stacking the deck' as winnning by defining the very terms of the debate.
Stan,
Are you a young earth creationist?
Since Genesis seems to describe a 7-day creation and God seems to confirm a 7-day creation, I tend toward a 7-day view of creation.
What do you mean by you "tend to lean" toward a 7-day creation? That sounds kind of vague to me. Do you believe the earth is 6,000-10,000 years old, or much older? Where do you stand on that issue?
What is your take on flood geology? Do you believe it was global, or local, or whatever else it could have been? It seems to me that most geologists laugh at the idea of a global flood. But I know that science is subject to interpretation. Where do you stand on that issue? Do you believe in animal death prior to the Fall?
-Jack T.
Genesis speaks of 7 days, defined by "the morning and the evening." Until Darwin, no one thought of anything but 24-hour periods. God indicates He made the world in 7 days (Exo 20:11) and predicates the Sabbath on that. So I believe in a 7-day creation. Does that mean that the earth is 6,000-10,000 years old? I personally don't see why. That requires extrabiblical calculations assuming that biblical genealogies are purely linear (when they clearly are not) and an actual timeline can be constructed from them. I have a hard time with billions of years (for more reasons than just Genesis) so I'm a "young-earther" but I'm not stuck on "6,000-10,000 years." Nor is it a hill to die on. I know old-earther believers for whom I have a great deal of respect. Not an issue for me. I believe what the Bible says. I don't believe that death prior to the Fall is biblically precluded; just human death. The fact that the Bible clearly outlines a global flood and many, even most geologists disagree doesn't bother me. I'll still stick with the biblical account. (And there are plenty of scientists in all fields that find no contradiction with a biblical worldview and science.)
Ah, I see. So what are some of the reasons for you rejecting billions of years as an arge of the earth?
My primary reason is that it doesn't fit in a biblical framework. Beyond that, there are scientific reasons. For instance, geology told us that certain geological structures took millions of years to form, but after Mt St Helens blew up, those same formations occurred in a matter of years rather than millions. In the past few years the news has had several stories of finding fossils with soft tissue still attached. How does that work in a "billions of years" scenario? Science tells us that there is about 400m of sediment on the ocean floor, but the average accumulation of sediment would require it to be much, much deeper than that if we're talking that long of a time. The Earth's magnetic field is decaying. Given the rate it is decaying, a very old earth view would require an impossible starting point or the absence of a magnetic field by now. Things like that. Those, however, are "supporting" or ancillary. As I said, I can't fit "billions of years" into a biblical framework without eliminating the Bible. Nor do I find any need to.
"Genesis speaks of 7 days, defined by "the morning and the evening." Until Darwin, no one thought of anything but 24-hour periods. God indicates He made the world in 7 days (Exo 20:11) and predicates the Sabbath on that. So I believe in a 7-day creation."
That sequesters your view of the world in an un-real dream time cut off from scientific fact. No scientific facts support 6 day creation. God is real so there';s an overlapp between the effects of Gods action and the nature of the world.
Anonymous, you're certainly not alone in your disagreement with Scripture, God, historical Christianity, historical Judaism, and all that. I, on the other hand, am not convinced by the evidence science offers on the subject and I'm pretty sure you can't even tell me what it is. If God did create the world in six 24-hour periods, what would that look like? How old would science say the rock was the day after God made it? Did trees have rings on the 7th day? Were they created full grown (as Scripture says Adam was)? The dating of the Earth is conjecture, extrapolation, opinion, and largely driven by the need to eliminate God from the equation. Science rarely proves anything by its own definition, constantly looking for more answers. I have no problem suggesting that the prevailing opinion of science disagrees with Genesis and is wrong.
Post a Comment