Succumbing to Evolution

By Michael Griego on September 20, 2014 • ( 1 )

It you’re tempted to agree with the Darwinian evolutionists, think again. Why do even Christians fall into the trap of a compromised worldview? ♦

Once again I’ve come across Christians who find themselves comfortably settling for a belief in what is called theistic evolution. They don’t position it this way or even know that terminology, they merely believe a worldview that seems to satisfy a growing number of Christians.

It’s the belief that God used evolution as His method for creation.

It’s bad enough that one believes in evolution (micro yes, macro no – see Biblical Viewpoint post Macroevolution and Microevolution), but to link God with it is actually the worst of all possibilities. It’s not only a contradiction in terms (living dead, civil war), it’s an intellectually easy way for Christians to have their cake and eat it too. One can keep their belief and acknowledgment of God and save face in the midst of a vast secular social sphere that believes in evolution without critical analysis beyond “it’s proven science.”

Because it’s not proven.

Again, micro yes, macro no. And macroevolution is what we’re talking about. Not evolution within a species to a variation of its kind (dogs, cats, horses, reptiles, etc.), but the wholesale transformation of one species to another completely different species (fish to squirrels, birds to cats, monkeys to man). Hasn’t happened – ever. And every serious scientist knows it. And if one claims it is proven, then ask specifically for the study that supports it. You’ll find they back off or produce some reference to a lab study showing how scientists added a another leg to a fly through some mutation. That is microevolution, not evidence that a fly can evolve, even into a bird.

Darwin Knew It
In his On the Origin of Species, Charles Darwin predicted problems in his theory that are still problems today. He was rightly disturbed by the lack of “transitional” species in the fossil record. He asked this question:

But, as by this theory innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth? (p 172)

Logic would expect to find creatures in the state of development between two species. For example, it might be a reptile with a partially formed feather, not a wholly developed one; or a creature with a part of an eye that didn’t yet “work.” But even though millions of fossils have been found since Darwin’s time, we still can’t identify any transitional species, let alone “countless numbers.” In fact, in the fossil record body parts and systems are either fully formed or non-existent.

Darwin did well with the information he had at the time, but his evolutionary theory was developed at the time of the American Civil War. Why is this 150-year-old theory still being taught as fact in light of recent discoveries?

Chance Has No Chance
The great theologian R. C. Sproul explains that for the materialist/naturalist/evolutionist, chance is the “magic wand to make not only rabbits but entire universes appear out of nothing.” Chance is what happens without cause. It implies the absence of both a design and a designer. Think about the absurdity of the notion that great man-made edifices or bridges, or musical scores, or classic works of art coming together randomly by chance and without a designer. Now consider the absurdity of boldly asserting that an eye, an egg, or the earth or universe, each in its vast complexity, merely evolving as a function of random chance.

It stretches credulity. Yet we’re told and taught to believe it. There’s not enough time for even the math to work. That’s why they keep pushing “millions and billions of years.” The odds that all the functional proteins necessary for life might form in just one place by random events were calculated by Sir Frederick Hoyle, the British astronomer to be 1 chance in 10^40,000.

Why don’t we push back and question the evolutionists?

Free to Question?
And to make matters worse, what if one side of the argument limited the ability to question or research the topic and publish results? Such is the case around the presumption of naturalistic evolution. By limiting the questions, the answers can be “guaranteed.” Evolutionists in the scientific and academic world can be boldly straightforward about doing this. For example, the American Journal of Physical Anthropology recommends to its readers:

In any confrontation, you should be prepared to show that evolution is scientific, not that it is correct….One need not discuss fossils, intermediate forms, or probabilities or mutation. These are incidental. The question is, what is science, and what is religion?

Therefore, if you must confront the creationists, we suggest you discuss the nature of science, the kind of knowledge it can provide and the kind it cannot provide. (vol.2 1983)

This is happening in schools, universities, and around water coolers. Sounds much like brainwashing and manipulation of the truth – the cover-up selling of a precious idea.

Foolish Agreement
So why do we settle for this and allow ourselves and culture to be so steered and manipulated to the point that even Christians submit? Why do we succumb to the nonsense of evolution vs. God or socially acceptable compromised positions?

Because we don’t want to appear as fools, which is exactly what we become by denying what is clearly before us:

…since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. – Romans 1:19-20

An omnipotent, omniscient God does not have to randomly plod through millions of mistakes, misfits, and mutations in order to have fellowship with humans. He can create humans in a microsecond. If theistic evolution is true, then Genesis is at best an allegory or farce, and the rest of the Bible becomes irrelevant. And Christ himself, who acknowledged Adam and creation, would not be needed as savior for a fallen world. No, you can’t really have it both ways.

The choice is to believe in man or a higher power, an intellectual designer, Almighty God. When you look around you and think through it, the choice is obvious.

Do you believe fallible man or God?
______________________________
The fool says in his heart, “There is no God.” – Psalm 14:1