According to the Wall Street Journal, children have a natural tendency to attribute their surroundings to intelligent design.
By elementary-school age, children start to invoke an ultimate God-like designer to explain the complexity of the world around them—even children brought up as atheists.
This is alarming to the atheists, so they have planned a strategy to indoctrinate the children with evolution early on in order to counter the children’s intuitions of a creative designer.
Dr. Kelemen and her colleagues thought that they might be able to get young children to understand the mechanism of natural selection before the alternative intentional-design theory had become too entrenched.
The secret may be to reach children with the right theory before the wrong one is too firmly in place.
It is an intentional strategy by atheists, and it is important for us as Christians to recognize the battlefield. If evolution is accepted within the walls of Christendom, then before long, the children will have no need for the Creator. Besides the obvious negative side of children embracing evolution in place of biblical creationism, there’s really no reason for anyone to be deceived since the global flood explains the evidence much better.
In the late 1800s and early 1900s with the advent of better microscopes and trait inheritance experimentation, the science of genetics was born. While some see the monumental amount of information within the DNA code as magnificently programmed, there have been some who claim that copying mistakes in DNA allow evolution. Genetics are said to provide the raw material (through random mutations or copying mistakes in the genetic code) for the additional information required to transform bacteria into biologists over billions of years. With the addition of random mutations to natural selection and deep time, evolution now had a naturalistic alternative to the creation story of the Bible.
The enlightenment time for evolution, though existing beforehand, was manifest into the biological literature in 1859 with the release of Charles Darwin’s book, “The Origin of Species by Natural Selection or The Preservation of the Favoured Races in the Struggle For Survival.” Darwin had many influences in his life that factored into his writing of The Origin of Species. Charles Lyell’s book, which described the millions of years of geology set a framework for his biological processes to “do their magic.” Darwin’s grandfather, who was a humanist and was very influential to young Charles, had worked diligently to write works that espoused evolution without a proper mechanism. Darwin also observed the suffering and death that was prevalent throughout his studies, and he had trouble attributing this to a “good” God. Sadly, this tragedy struck home when Darwin’s daughter died of a stomach ailment, and he could not cope with the problem of evil and a good God. With all of these influences, he voraciously strove to publish a scientific replacement for God. Darwin lamented, “I can indeed hardly see how anyone ought to wish Christianity to be true; for if so the plain language of the text seems to show that the men who do not believe, and this would include my father, brother and almost all my best friends, will be everlastingly punished. And this is a damnable doctrine.” Despite the strong influence of Christian thought in his culture, Darwin wrote, “I am sorry to have to inform you that I do not believe in the Bible as a divine revelation, & therefore not in Jesus Christ as the Son of God.”
Fully understanding the moral implications of his theory of evolution, on page 94 of his autobiography, Charles Darwin wrote: “A man who has no assured and ever present belief of a personal God or of a future existence with retribution and reward, can have for his rule of life, as far as I can see, only to follow those impulses and instincts which are the strongest or which seem to him the best ones.” Darwin understood that without having the God of the Bible, that there is no objective foundation for morality. Moral relativism is inevitable with evolution.
Lynn Margulis writes, “Darwin was brilliant to make natural selection a sort of godlike term, an expression that could replace God, who did it-created forms of life.” Darwin’s published works, which describe in detail the process of evolution, have led Martin Lings to write “More cases of loss of religious faith are to be traced to the theory of evolution…than to anything else.” So Darwin had what he thought was his mechanism to replace God as creator: natural selection.
Scottish geologist, James Hutton, who worked hard to unhinge scientific thought from biblical thinking, proposed the idea of the earth forming over millions of years. Hutton has been called the father of modern geology, and his ideas have been cultivated in the writings of Charles Lyell and Thomas Huxley. On page 4 of Hutton’s biography, The Man Who Found Time, Jack Repcheck says, “The age of the earth is the wedge that ‘shattered the biblically rooted picture of Earth and separated science from theology.’” Without deep time, Hutton’s proposal to ignore the Bible in favor of uniformitarianism would have been worthless.
Charles Lyell, whose principle publication was Principles of Geology and augmented Hutton’s introduction of millions of years, shared with a friend that his works would “free the science from Moses.” Quite obviously these geologists of the 1800s worked hard to bury the Bible so their science of geology could blossom without its influence. They very much desired not to be bound by the authority of scripture, and their proposals were intended to elevate uniformitarian science above the teachings of scripture. As Hutton and Lyell’s ideas of deep time became more prominent, the less veracity the Bible seemed to contain. It was the writings of Charles Lyell that had a profound impact on one Charles Darwin.
We need to define some terms before we get going too far into the discussion. In this and future posts on this topic, I would like to define my use of the term evolution to refer to the grand theory of evolution, which states that a simple, single-celled, original and common ancestor (and all subsequent descendants) experienced random genetic mutations, and thus, through the process of natural selection, changed into all living creatures, including mankind. This process is said to have taken almost four billion years (referred to as “deep time” hereafter.) Today, this story is taught as the Neo-Darwinian synthesis. Atheists tell us today that this process (mutation, selection, and deep time) requires no intervention from a supernatural entity. If we go back to our original question, “could God have used evolution as his creative mechanism?” we must now ask “Why should Christians explain creation with both the evolutionary mechanism and deep time, which requires no God, to explain something that God did?” Where did the ideas of billions of years and naturalistic evolution come from? In other words, do the original ideas of deep time and Neo-Darwinian mechanisms come from committed disciples of Christ or someone else?
The grand theory of evolution is central to the atheist origins story since it is said to be a completely natural process requiring no intervention from an intelligent designer. In the words of Richard Dawkins, “Although atheism might have been logically tenable before Darwin, Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.” Evolution is the primary pillar of the atheist’s origin story as it is an attempt at explaining living organisms without the Creator. Why should Christians attempt to bring harmony between the primary pillar of atheism and the narrative that carries throughout scripture? It is not only unnecessary (scientifically), it is untenable according to the whole of scripture.
Wrong information can lead to terrible consequences. In 1941, incorrect information from military intelligence doomed thousands of American sailors to death when experts believed that Japan was unable to mount a significant attack on Pearl Harbor. In 2001, bad/false information led to the loss of billions of dollars when the DotCom bubble collapsed. In the early 1st century, many Jews were doomed to face eternal punishment because of believing false information. John 7:40-53 shares the story of some Jews who mistakenly thought Jesus was born in Galilee, and since they knew from Old Testament scripture that the Messiah would be born in Bethlehem, the wrong belief that he was born in Galilee (presumably) cost them their salvation. Bad information led to bad results in all of these situations. As I write this manifesto, I do not want the evolutionary origins story to lead people to miss out on the overall truth of the Bible because they have categorically dismissed it.
On hearing his words, some of the people said, “Surely this man is the Prophet.” Others said, “He is the Christ.” Still others asked, “How can the Christ come from Galilee? Does not the Scripture say that the Christ will come from Bethlehem, the town where David lived?” – John 7:40-42
I want to be sure to emphasize that I do not believe that someone who agrees with the theory of evolution will be exempt from salvation. Salvation comes from the recognition of one’s moral depravity and the only solution being to accept Christ’s forgiveness (Romans 3:23, John 3:16, I John 1:9, Romans 10:8-10). It is the work of the Holy Spirit to convict a person of sin and their need for salvation through Christ. So, one can still be a Christian and believe that evolution happened.
What’s the problem then? I believe that those who have created and propagated the theory of evolution did so with the intent to replace God as the Creator. I believe and hope to show in the following paragraphs that evolution is not a benign axiom on which science is built. It is the primary tool in the deceiver’s arsenal to create distrust of God’s Word. So the problem is that someone who believes that a mixture of the evolutionary origins story and the Genesis account is either:
Ignorant of scripture
Has been misled about scripture and/or science
Going to have contradictions in their worldview
Going to inject their personal worldview into their interpretation of scripture (eisegesis) rather than the more biblical exegesis, which lets scripture set the boundaries for interpretation
And I believe that there is a greater danger that this person will fall into apostasy (I’ve personally witnessed this happening, and there’s no shortage of similar stories.)
All scientists believe in evolution, so you better believe it too…according to the media, textbooks, and evolutionists. This is not unexpected. For at least the last 70 years evolution has been taught as fact in high schools, colleges, and universities. So, entire generations of teachers have heard only the materialist dogma of evolutionary theory, and their worldviews have been shaped to interpret evidence through this lens.
Missing Common Ancestors. In the evolution story, it is said that humans did not evolve from chimps, both species evolved from a common ancestor. The same story is mentioned for birds / dinosaurs and amphibians / fish and reptiles / mammals and everything in between. The problem is that all of these common ancestors are missing. The actual transitional fossils that have been found are questionable in the accuracy of their interpretations. The pattern of discovered missing links by evolutionists is that a small fragment is extrapolated by artists to fit the exact ancestor that was needed to link two species. See the charts below and you will notice that the common ancestors are missing:
Convergence. When two are more organisms have the same shape, functionality, or organ, but are not said to have a close evolutionary ancestor, the organisms are said to have experienced convergence. It is used as a scientific-sounding term to hide evolutionary problems of similarities in unrelated organisms. The hope for evolutionists is that if there is a word associated with the problem, then there is no need to actually have evidence to show how the feature showed up, not just once, but many times throughout evolutionary history. An example of this would be that bats and dolphins use echolocation to eat, but they are not viewed as having a close evolutionary relationship.
To say that a shape, functionality, or organ evolved naturally even one time stretches the credibility/mathematics of reason, but to say that the same shape, functionality, or organ evolved multiple times in distinct and unrelated species is beyond belief.