(Written spring of 2006)
When the “Encyclopedia Britannica” published a fifty-five volume set of books entitled “The Great Books of the Western World” the longest essay in the volumes was on God. When asked about this, the co-editor, Mortimer Adler aptly replied, “Because… more consequences for life and action follow the affirmation or denial of God than from any other basic question”. No matter which side of the argument you stand on his answer tears at the heart of the conclusion of all questions.
In today’s teachings we are often told that there are no absolutes. I have often heard this echoed in the halls of our most prestigious institutions of learning. To come to the truth one needs to have a solid foundation to build upon and when you lay a weak or unstable foundation anything that you build upon it will be corrupt and uninhabitable. The statement of “there are no absolutes” is a violation upon itself, as it is an absolute statement of fact. Anything that you build upon this false pretense will multiply in error as a mathematical equation would if your starting point was in error, as two plus three equals four. The desire and need to dissolve any absolutes as a starting point is crucial to the atheistic arguments of today. To even have a conversation that is coherent you can not start with an incoherent or false statement or all that proceeds lacks credibility.
The thing that both philosophies have in common is the need for a starting point of reference. Life, as we know it, had to come about by one of two means. An atheist puts their belief in the process of natural selection, or as many know it, “Darwinism” or “the theory of evolution”. Unfortunately, this view point is expressed through the impartiality of scientific conclusion. That could no farther be from the truth as the “religion of evolution”, or “Scientism”, is made through partiality, prejudice, and with great leaps of faith in contradiction to many of the theories of science itself. The prejudice is against even entertaining the thought of a Devine creator. We were told to explain the origin of life “outside” of the interference of a creator. Should not an open minded investigation keep all doors open? To understand how this can affect the outcome of our experiments, what if I told you to explain the Great Wall of China devoid of any involvement from man? Experiments would be done and many theories would come forth and the theorists would present any evidence, no matter how weak, to support their theories. We cannot factor out the pride issues that are involved in the experiments. Peoples pride can cause them to cheat in a friendly game of Scrabble, much less when fame and fortune are waiting in the ranks. An example of this was the “Piltdown Hoax”. There were many a scientific studies done and written on these fossilized skull fragments found in Sussex , England , in 1913. This was proof of the theory of evolution and it took science 40 years to finally admit that it was a hoax. Why so long? Prejudices and pride as scientists were willing to grasp onto any anecdotal evidence to show the prowess of man. What of the people that fell prey to this hoaxed up evidence in that 40 years and passed away before it was uncovered as a hoax. Do we really want to put that kind of ultimate faith in man?
I heard an interview with noted scientist and astronomer Carl Sagan on KMOX in St. Louis within a year of his passing in 1996. He was asked about a deathbed confession to come by the interviewer as he was terminally ill. He stood fast on his atheistic beliefs and said he would to the end, sighting the many evidences that science had produced against a creator. Shortly after his death many of these evidences were blown out of the water or left open for reexamination after further advancements like the Hubble Telescope proved them to be in error. Yet, he was convinced in their evidence just months earlier and before his death. The pride of man, thinking we are all knowing while we are limited to our equipment and understanding.
When we find new advancements, such as DNA for example, we are quick to grasp at them as proof that all things in life can be explained without God. As Francis Crick, who built the first working DNA model along with fellow scientist James Watson, stated, “The ultimate aim of the modern movement in biology is in fact to explain ALL biology in terms of physics and chemistry”. If they could prove, which they cannot, that the genetic code is the result of natural selection, it still would need the ability to translate the code into function, and this translation itself depends upon components that are themselves the products of translation. The probability of this occurring naturally can intelligently be argued as zero. What of the fact that you need DNA to produce proteins, but you need proteins to make DNA? It makes you forget about the Chicken and the egg.
The evolution of biological organisms into more complex and superior design is also in direct conflict with the Second Law of Thermodynamics in Physics. In short, the science that involves the intermingling of different forms of energy and the behavior of systems as they relate to pressure and temperature. It does not support their theory because the law states that heat cannot be transferred from a colder body to a hotter body without net changes occurring in other bodies. In an irreversible process, entropy or heat death always increases. This goes in the opposite direction of Natural selection and moves instead from order to disorder or the complex to the simple. As Christian Apologist Ravi Zacharias states it, “How do biological systems climb the ladder of intricacy and order while the natural world descends to entropy and disorder”? Since entropy gives information about the evolution of an isolated system with time, it is said to give us the direction of "time's arrow”. If snapshots of a system at two different times show one state which is more disordered, then it could be implied that this state came later in time. For an isolated system, the natural course of events takes the system to a more disordered (higher entropy) state. This is just the opposite of biological entities in evolution.
When we hear the word evolution we misunderstand it as meaning macroevolution, or the ability of a species to evolve into another species over time. There is zero proof of this ever occurring, but it is left with a lack of definition because we do have proof of microevolution occurring (the ability for a species to make adaptations within its species). In other words we have no evidence to support one species evolving into another but evolution has been shown in the ability of a species to adapt to its environment, but not CHANGE species. What a leap of faith that must take!
The late Sir Fred Hoyle proposed the modern belief of many that primitive life was carried to the earth on board of comets zipping through the universe(another leap of faith and just where did that life come from?). He also coined the phrase “Big Bang” to explain a theory of origin that he did not ascribe to. He most likely came up with his comet theory with the inability to defend life’s origin from the random shuffling of molecules. In his book “The Intelligent Universe”, he compared the theory of random life to being as improbable as a tornado blowing through a junk yard and assembling a Boeing 747. He calculated that life beginning randomly on its own is one in ten to the power of 40,000. (He examined the chance that 2,000 enzyme molecules will be formed simultaneously from their 20 component amino acids on a single specified occasion). Another contemporary scientist defended the randomness of life by attacking Hoyles’ argument this way. “But this is not the correct calculation (stated as a matter of fact for him). The relevant chance is, some far simpler self-replicating system (we have NO idea what kind), capable of development by natural selection, being formed at any place on earth (we have NO idea where), and at any time within a period of 100 million years (we have NO idea when, 100 million years is quite a wild guess for a being that may average a 70 year life span). We cannot calculate this probability (I thought that he already said that Hoyles’ calculation was wrong so he must know how), since we know neither the nature of the hypothetical self-replicating system, nor the composition of the “primeval soup” in which it arose (what do they know?). The origin of life was obviously a rare event, but there is not reason to think that it is extraordinary or unlikely as Hoyle calculated”. DOES THIS SOUND LIKE AN UN-BIASED, SCIENCE BASED CONCLUSION, OR A WILD LEAP OF FAITH? It is, however, what is taught and believed by many as a fact in our schools.
Robert Hazen, of NASA’S Astrobiology Institute, recently concluded in an article in “Element” magazine that “Rocks and minerals must have played a pivotal role in the transition from the blasted, prebiotic Earth to the living world that we now inhabit”. Nevertheless he concluded that: “Scientists are still far from understanding the ancient, intricate processes that led to the origin of life”. This is yet another new theory from the supposed brightest minds of our time, that we have come from rocks and minerals they just don’t know how, when, or where, but they are sure. George Cody, of the Carnegie Institution of Washington stated in the same article: “Natural transition metal sulfide minerals can promote a broad range of organic reactions, either catalytically or as reaction participants. Whether and how this chemistry may have aided the emergence of life remains a mystery”. He had already stated earlier in the article that “At present there is no completely satisfactory theory for the origin of life”. This belief that we came from rocks and minerals reminds one of the profit Jeremiah preaching that those people of Israel that had abandoned God to worship Pagan idols should be ashamed by stating: “Saying to a stock, Thou art my Father; and to a stone, Thou hast brought me forth”:… (Jeremiah 2:27)
In today’s world view there is a dire prejudice placed against the intelligence of a person of faith. There is a huge effort put forth to discredit the creation theory and anyone that might ascribe to it. On Bill Maher’s show “Politically Incorrect” he stated in an argument against creationism in schools that, “One side (evolution) is believed by scientist and proven by science while the other side (creation) is a butt load of crap”. He then followed up by stating that “If God created man in his image then he must be a monkey”, this brought applause from his audience (we now know where Jerry Springer’s audience goes when he is not taping a show). This was a prejudiced, ignorant attack, devoid of the truth and swallowed up by the “intelligent, open minded left”. I guess that Bill can just ignore the many scientists that believe in a creator or happen to even be Christian in their beliefs. Stephen Hawking, who holds Newton ’s Chair as Lucasian professor of Mathematics at Cambridge University , finished up his view of the universe by stating, “The one question in need of an answer is the question of God. Science, with all of its strident gains, must still remain contented to describe the “what” of human observations. Only God can answer the why”.
We cannot give one side a free pass as being impartial and open minded while condemning the other as close minded lunatics. There are many people defending evolution as being under attack like never before. THIS STATEMENT IN ITSELF SHOWS THE INCREDIBLE BIAS AND PREJUDICE OF THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION AND THE PEOPLE THAT ASCRIBE TO IT. If evolution is backed up by scientific data and open mind ness, HOW CAN SCIENCE ATTACK SCIENCE BY DOING FURTHER ANALYSIS ON THE ACCEPTED BUT UNPROVEN BELIEFS? Isn’t that the job of the open minded scientific community? It being viewed as an attack further displays it’s evolvement into yet another world religion. How dare we question science and ask it to put forth proof for their supposed unbiased claims? The apostle Paul stated in Romans 1:22, “Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools”. When trying to push forward and have them state facts of finding you will inevitably be challenged in your beliefs system. This is an effort to side track you and a way to avoid their lack of scientific proof to back up their unbelievable leap of faith in the knowledge of man. It is fine if evolution is your religion but don’t teach it as a fact to our children. If you want to talk about violation of church and state, this is it.
If you look back at the history of this movement of atheism, Charles Darwin gave them something to grasp at. This started a movement and the pride and rebellion of man grabbed hold out of desperation. But we must finally ask ourselves, “Where do these two belief systems eventually take us in society”? When we grasp a hold of Evolution then we put our faith into a system of Natural Selection and survival of the fittest. Karl Marx considered dedicating his “Das Kapital” to Charles Darwin in the English translation, which Darwin declined. According to Marx, religion was the Opiate of the people and allowed for class division impeding his move toward a Utopian society, and Darwin ’s work had given him the scientific backing that he felt he needed. This laid the foundation for Joseph Stalin’s hatred of religious peoples and the murder of mass millions during his regime.
German philosopher, Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900), took this one step further by declaring God dead. He despised religion and once stated “I call Christianity the one great curse, the one enormous and innermost perversion, the one great instinct of revenge, for which no means are too venomous, too underhanded, too underground, and too petty”. His writings can be found and are taught all over our colleges, and he played a great role in shaping the philosophies of Hitler, Stalin, and Mussolini. Darwin ’s theories and Nietzscheian dogma had such an influence on Hitler that he personally presented a copy of Nietzsche’s works to Benito Mussolini. It later led Hitler on to his mission to slaughter and obliterate the weak and inferior from this world. Natural selection followed out to the maximum.
Psychologist Sigmund Freud said on many occasions that Nietzsche knew himself better than any other human being. He meant it as a complement but that could explain why Nietzsche spent the last eleven years of his life insane. Freud also stated that “God had been a kind of consolation to humanity living in the nest, yet upon growing up man had given him his eviction notice”. This sounds like the talk of a rebellious child toward his father, only later having to fill his emptiness and meaning of life with drugs and sexual endeavors.
Ultimately there is a price to pay for mankind’s belief in the death of God. Even Nietzsche himself predicted that “Because of the death of God in the nineteenth century, the twentieth century would become the bloodiest century ever”. In answer to those that want to remind us of the atrocities done in the name of Christ, I want to state that these were done in direct conflict to the teachings of Christ. I challenge anyone to prove me wrong on that. On the other hand Hitler and the atrocities committed by the secular world fulfill the theory of Natural Selection and Darwinism to their climax. I am not saying that an atheist cannot be moral, just that if they are they are living above and beyond the teachings of their beliefs.
If we are the result of just a senseless, random act of the shuffling of molecules, then there truly is no meaning to life and the ends do justify the means. Why then, regardless of the accomplishments that one might find in life, is there dissatisfaction and an inner push to find the meaning of life? When we seem to be at the top of the hill, a fall is sure to come. As Ravi Zacharias put it in his book “The Real Face of Atheism”, “The loneliest moment in life is when you have just experienced what you thought would deliver the ultimate, and it has let you down”. After winning the Super Bowl with the Dallas Cowboys quarterback Troy Aikman was left to ask “That’s it”? When we seek fulfillment through our proud independence of God, no satisfaction can be found. Often that is when we fill the void and escape reality through drugs, sex, and many other momentary escapes. I say momentary because regardless of how good we feel at the moment of the selfish act, it will be followed by depression and a sense of guilt to follow. If Natural Selection is true, then we must place ourselves at the top of our priority list and in this selfish act, we will never be truly happy or satisfied. Look around you and you will not find one person that puts themselves first to be happy. In our rebellion against God, our denying his existence at all costs so we can have the freedom to play on our desires, we can see an end result of a very unsatisfying and unfulfilling existence. If one looks at a child who answers to no one, no rules, no curfews, and does their free will, you will find a child in misery when the world tells us they should be in ecstasy. If you understand these principles it is not hard to see the hatred and animosity displayed against God. The insistence to remove Him from all facets of life makes sense in a rebellious heart. Just as we have laid down rules to protect our children, and they may not understand them thinking that we are destroying their fun, God has set rules for us to follow. And just as our children rebel against us in their pride, we rebel against God. Just as they do not want to hear it from us, we avoid hearing it from God so much that we wish to strike him from existence, just as we would want to avoid someone that we feel we have wronged.
Many express hatred toward what they consider a self riotous arrogant Christian attitude. Let me say that often arrogance is read into the fact that someone has a strong confidence in their beliefs. I often tell my kids to know what you believe in and why you believe it. There is a premium placed on the world view of an open minded ignorance today. That there are no absolutes, no moral compass, and no real right or wrong. This kind of destructive teaching leaves us in peril at times of a crisis. We have to look no further than the aftermath in New Orleans after hurricane Katrina to see what this belief system will bring.
I know that I am a sinner deserving judgment as such. But I also believe that Christ paid the price for my (and the worlds) sins and in this I will be given His Grace. I believe that if anything good comes out of my works, it is through God that it comes.
Kevin Harned