The Origins of the Theory of Evolution - Chap 5


What can be learned by considering the origins of the

theory of evolution? Well for one thing we can ask the

“why” and the “who”. Who were these people seeking to establish an alternate explanation for things that did away with the need for God? And what provoked it all?


Their excuses include hypocrisy in the church, sin in the

church, (the crusades, the inquisition, selling indulgences).

Natural disasters, like the Lisbon earthquake of 1755 where an

estimated 60,000 men, women and children died, along with the Black Death plague jumped to their justification. The pain and suffering seen everywhere upon the innocent, is apparently also God’s fault in their minds.


All these excuses played their part in the attempted

justification for the flight from God. The real reason was the

rebellion in the heart of those who saw God not as the loving

heavenly Father, but as a killjoy standing between them

and their prideful natural inclinations. Here is a quote

from the evolution’s founder, Charles Darwin in The Origin of Species:


“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 that do not believe,

and this would include my father, brother, and all my

best friends, will be everlastingly punished and this is

a damnable doctrine.”


And remember, Darwin could only see a cell with a primitive

scope. A cell has a universe within it including DNA. Darwin did

not know the macro and micro limits that exist in nature.

Do you see the implications? The founders of the theory

of evolution resolutely and purposefully with full resolve and

intent set out to find justification in doing away with God! That is

not what we’ve been carefully taught. The church and the world

believe it was what they learned in their labs and fields of study

that convinced them that evolution and natural selection were

the true cause of all creation. (And they are all neutral, fair and

unbiased, right?)


Darwin’s rejection of God and theory of evolution are not

founded in scientific research, but in his personal rebellion against

God. His decision was made at the very beginning. That is not at

all what we have been led to believe. Consider…

• Where do evolutionists say everything came from?

The Big Bang.

• Where does Evolution say the Big Bang came from? A Point of Singularity.

• Where does Evolution say the Point of Singularity

came from? They don’t say.

• Where does Evolution say the laws of nature come

from? They don’t say.

• Do they say why the laws are dependable? No.

• Do they say why the laws are knowable, discernible

and comprehendible? No.

You are expected to just believe what they say, to trust them.

You know, like taking candy from strangers. Or, shut up and drink

the Kool-Aid.


Consider some of what the children face when they side

against the evolution establishment. The schools pretty much

succeed in convincing children that:

  • To believe in God is unscientific.

  • And superstitious.

  • And primitive.

  • And disputes and opposes science.

  • And, all valid science and scientists affirm evolution.

  • And all the evidence supports it.

  • And “your faith is not evidence”.

  • Our theory is.

  • Now you will fall in line and accept our authority

  • Or face the ongoing consequences of:

  • Persecution.

  • Shunning.

  • Being slotted as religious,

  • and primitive,

  • and superstitious,

  • and poorly educated,

  • and hate filled,

  • unkind,

  • and unloving.

  • And with viewed with disdain.

The weapons to defeat evolution are not technical. They are

easy to understand insights. They confirm experience and are self-evident.

By this we mean that the insight makes sense and follows

the rules of logic, and makes sense to us personally. Why should

you trust strangers?


For example: Both science and common sense declare

“NOTHING comes from nothing.” Evolution offers no explanation

of how it all got started. After all a Big Bang requires a Big Banger

who lights the fuse. The Bible does explain. The explanation is

God started it, which is both rational and plausible. The enemy

replies “where did God come from?”

The answer is in two parts and is not complicated.

First, both reason and experience testify “everything that

begins to exist has a cause.” We know and experience the physical

world, so we know something exists. We know something caused

it. Second, there must be by necessity an “uncaused first cause.”

Call it what you will. I call it God. Unless you are fleeing from

God, this is a reasonable, rational, satisfying and common-sense

conclusion.


The other side doesn’t want a God. After all, he would

have to be personal, because for humans to be

personal and have personality, it would, by necessity

have to issue forth from a “person.” Nothing else would

make sense. So, evolutionists reason, a personal God probably

has a moral code He would expect us to live by it; and to them,

that is NOT good news. This is a liberating insight revealing why

the theory of evolution exists. In fact, flight from God is the only

reason for evolution. This is clear from its origins. This is the

plausible reason why they flee from God.


The argument for evolution is appealing only if the idea

of God is bad news. Apart from that, evolution will not hold

up to even rudimentary questions or examination. For example,

if the idea of God were not so distasteful, one might wonder

what criteria were used in making the determination of the cause

being (A) Evolution, and not (B) God. Where could we could

go to examine the criteria for ourselves? Another essential part

is our perception is that we perceived the scientists as neutral,

as trustworthy and reliable, as unbiased and not having an

unspoken, or hidden agenda. A look at the origins of the theory

explodes that lie.


The theory of evolution is a search for an explanation for

creation other than considering God. If one is eager to believe

against God, he might not require the same level of proof to

reach a conclusion he favors, as he would to accept one he views

as to his disadvantage. This is the advantage every “con-man”

enjoys.


As Christians we are under obligation to live our lives in

ways that do not give unbelievers a reason to doubt the goodness

of God.


Atheists are people of great faith. They believe in politics, not

“In God we trust,” but “In government we trust!” Not having

any other option, they are forced to put their trust in government

What a sad and unpromising hope!


They naively have no choice but to believe bureaucrats and

politicians will handle their positions of trust with integrity and

trustworthiness against all the evidence compiled revealing the

fallenness of human nature.


They realize all humanity faces temptation and when

government officials are tempted, not knowing God is keeping

score, will seek a rational basis to succeed in resisting the

temptation. Otherwise, the voters may lose faith in the system, the

government will go broke, and we will face collapse and anarchy.

Keep the faith. Trust government! Who needs God anyhow!

What if banishing God in the classroom equates, with “we

are not made in God’s image,” therefore we lose some of our

meaning, dignity, significance, purpose and value? I am inclined

to believe that put this way, a considerable majority would favor

allowing God back into the classroom. The objectors might be

somewhat pacified with a generic “god,” but not Christian, Jewish

or Muslim. Evolutionists just want some authority figure who

conveys value to all persons. That is not science, shout objectors!

Really? Who gave them the authority to decide what is and what

is not, science?


Scientists who proclaim, “faith in God is not scientific”

are talking out of turn. Their authority to speak is limited to the

physical and natural world. Think about it! Anything existing

beyond the physical is beyond scope of their area of expertise.

Their position is no more than speculation and conjecture no

matter how much they fume and fuss. Speaking practically, faith

in evolution is not science. Could it be possible? Is there even a

one in a million chance that what they have proclaimed about

the theory of evolution is not the whole story? Is it possible that

evolution is really no more than an alternate explanation that

leaves God out? And can it be proved? And haven’t we

been told that religion is only a holdover from pre-scientific

times and that faith is no different from superstition, myth,

fable and fairytales and legends? Evolutionists

say modern well-educated people no longer look for, look to God?

Why would anyone question them? Doesn’t evolution answer all

the questions? Are there other vital considerations left out? What,

for instance?


Evolution—the greatest lie ever sold!

The goal is to answer the questions and to send our children

out into the world informed….armored, unafraid, bold and

confident.


The goal is to provide insights that are not technical, but are

easy to understand and defeat the evolution juggernaut. (Someone

made the term Big Pharma a well-known pejorative. Can we add

Big Science?)


It is science that claims, without any basis or supporting

evidence, the authority to pontificate and rule not only in their

field, but also beyond and into metaphysics, the spiritual and to

the existence or non-existence of God. Tell the children how the

science establishment came to the conclusion against God. It was

not from what they learned in science.


Tell us explicitly WHAT it was that weighed against

God? After all, don’t they represent there are millions of tons of

evidence? Your children think what their authority figures learned

from science made them atheists.


What the authority figures learned was dogma and not

science.







Recent Posts
Archive
Search By Tags
No tags yet.
Follow Us
  • Facebook Basic Square
  • Twitter Basic Square
  • Google+ Basic Square