Creation: Question Evolution Campaign — 11 of 15
A Sunday guest post by my brilliant husband, Gregg.
Every Sunday, my clever husband offers me a “day of rest” by taking over the homemaker duties here. His primary topic, the Biblical Truth of Creation vs. Darwinism, is a subject that has broad reaching scientific, social, and metaphysical implications and is gaining more and more attention in our modern culture. For believers and non-believers alike, the primary purpose is to present scientific, historical, logical, and/or sociological data in an empirical and defensible fashion, as much as possible written in layman’s terms, and in a format suitable for supplementing any homeschool curriculum whether you choose to believe the Biblical account — or secular guesses — about the origins of human life on earth.
Origin of the Mind
Question number 11 in the creation.com Question Evolution campaign is, “How did blind chemistry create mind/intelligence, meaning, altruism and morality?”
If everything evolved, and we invented God, as per evolutionary teaching, what purpose or meaning is there to human life? Should students be learning nihilism (life is meaningless) in science classes? Why, then, do we also teach philosophy? What is the outcome of generations of nihilist indoctrination on our culture?
“Let me summarize my views on what modern evolutionary biology tells us loud and clear — and I must say that these are basically Darwin’s views. There are no gods, no purposive forces of any kind, no life after death. When I die, I am absolutely certain that I’m going to be completely dead. That’s just all! That’s going to be the end of me. There is no ultimate foundation for ethics, no ultimate meaning to life, and no free will for humans either. What an unintelligible idea!”
Professor William Provine, PhD; Professor of Evolutionary Biology at Cornell University, from a debate in 1994 at Stanford University
In the USA, our forefathers founded a nation on the principles that all people are “created” equal, and that all human beings have unalienable rights that are endowed upon us by our “Creator,” and that among them are the right to life and liberty. These principles are clearly the natural and very logical conclusions one reaches when one understands that we are created beings, that our creator is a supreme intelligence and the lawgiver of the universe, that our lives have meaning and value. Since the 1960s, we have gone very far away from those very simple principles.
In the teachings of the Bible, there are very clear moral absolutes. Murder, for example, is always wrong. Lying (bearing false witness) is always wrong. What kind of morality can come from the muddy relativism that is the natural offspring of the Darwinist philosophy?
While Christians define it as murder, Darwinism is so plastic and so morally relative, that it is perfectly fine to murder utterly innocent unborn human beings ala abortion, or the aged or infirm ala euthanasia. It all depends upon who solipsistically gets to define whom is deemed the “fittest” in the context of the species.
Darwinian fraud is perpetrated on global and shocking scale. When 200 year old fraudulent embryo drawings turn up in modern textbooks, the Darwinian apologetic is simply that the end often justifies the means. In other words, lying is sometimes morally right, provided that the lie advances the Darwinian agenda.
In the teachings of the Bible, man is given dominion and stewardship over the entire earth. This means that we are to sheperd all living things. On the other hand, Darwinists may be extremely cruel to animals; after all, under the doctrine of “survival of the fittest,” even the most gratuitous and painful actions can rationalized and justified as “helping” natural selection along. While on the opposite end of the spectrum, Darwinists elevate animals to the status of human beings, like those who wish to give human rights to apes, on the basis that we are all “related,” by the mythical common ancestor, so humans are not entitled to any special status.
Ultimately, a philosophy that encompasses every possible notion, has no particular meaning.
“The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.”
Richard Dawkins, Evangelical Atheist and University of Oxford’s Professor for Public Understanding of Science
By clinging to the above philosophy, Darwinists are in denial of even basic and foundational evidence that refutes thier worldview. As GK Chesterton wrote nearly a century ago, ‘If an ignorant man went about saying that the earth was flat, the scientific man would promptly and confidently answer, “Oh, nonsense; of course it’s round.” He might even condescend to give the real reasons, which I believe are quite different from the current ones. But when the private citizen rushes wild-eyed down the streets of Heliopolis, Neb., calling out “Have you heard the news? Darwin’s wrong!” the scientific man does not say, “Oh, nonsense, of course he’s right.” He says tremulously, “Not entirely wrong; surely not entirely wrong”; and we can draw our conclusions.’
If mankind is the result of an absence of design, a dearth of purpose, and we came from blind indifference — then why do we design, why do we live purposeful lives, and why are acts of sacrifice and altruism to better the human condition so very common? In other words, how did blind chemistry create mind/ intelligence, meaning, altruism and morality? To read more about this question and it’s answer, go to http://creation.com/chesterton
I commit to you that I will publish every single comment that meets this blog’s commenting criteria. You may want to review that criteria before adding your opinion here.
God Bless you and yours.
Additional Posts dealing with Creation and Darwinism
A few months ago I decided I would try to read the whole Bible, which I had never done. I skipped around and I’m maybe 4/5s of the way through right now. It would be better to read carefully and keep track of characters and dates and ideas, but I realized if I tried to do that I would never finish. So I am simply reading the text without studying it. Because my memory is starting to be not so good, I don’t remember a lot of what I’ve read. As soon as I finish, I should start over again, this time with study guides.
I am not going to be converted back to belief by reading it (probably no surprise). I recognize some verses, phrases and ideas; reading them in context has not helped to illuminate them. It’s as if what I heard in church was like a movie trailer that includes all the best parts of the movie, so that seeing the whole movie doesn’t add that much more. I found it very hard to make myself read it; it has not felt rewarding. For me it is mostly tedious, needing editing, especially in the Old Testament. (I think there’s a verse or two about people who don’t get it; I’m in that group.)
So anyway. I was reading in the Old Testament and there were parts you are probably very familiar with but they were new to me. One was in the book of Numbers where God told the Israelites to avenge themselves on the Midianites. So at the end of the battle all the men were killed and the army brought the women and children to Moses. And he told them to kill all the little boys, and all the women who had lain with a man. So here’s this group of terrified women and children whose husbands and brothers and fathers have been killed and whose homes have been burned. I don’t know what the marriage age was then, but I’m guessing that it might have been teenaged or younger, and I’m guessing that pretty much all women were married. So there are all these little girls and teenaged girls and suddenly they see their baby brothers and their mothers and grandmothers and big sisters killed and they get divided up to be whatever – slaves or wives. And all the Lord did was to make sure the various groups and the priests all got their fair share of the booty. So I am not impressed with the humane values in the Bible. The story of Jephthah’s daughter was not too pleasant either. God saved Isaac and He was all the time giving messages to the Israelites about wars and battles. It seems like He could have spoken to Jephthah and let him off his ridiculous vow (a classic myth/fairy tale kind of vow, although maybe the fairy tale versions had their basis in this Bible story). I didn’t much like the story about the Levite’s concubine and how God had the Israelites attack the tribe of Benjamin in retaliation. And then after the women of that tribe has apparently been killed there were some men left, and the Israelites took pity on them. So in order that the remaining Benjaminites should have wives to marry, the Israelites went and attacked another tribe and killed all the men and the married women so the remaining men from the tribe of Benjamin could take the virgin girls for their wives.
I mean, this is not heartwarming reading. So I am not impressed with the compassionate morals of the Old Testament.
(It looks like this comment did not go through moderation. Since all the longer comments I’ve posted to the creationism posts get moderated it never occurred to me that this one would not have been moderated also. That worries me because I’m not sure you would have chosen to have this particular comment posted.)
There are certain buzzwords that automatically get a comment placed in moderation. It saves my readers from really angry anti-Creationists and their rants. You typically use one or two of the buzzwords in a comment — obviously, this one was clean – lol. I can pull it if you wanted to just have it there for Gregg to read.
I don’t mind if you leave it as long as it’s not a problem for you and Gregg. It’s not my usual response, though; usually I try to stick to the science.
Some of the earlier questions in the CMI “Question Evolution Campaign”list are legitimate interesting scientific questions. Biologists don’t see them as counter to the idea of evolution, but they are interesting in themselves. The remaining questions are not interesting to me, mainly annoying.
But also in looking for the list on the CMI website to see what questions are in the future, I noticed that the “Question Evolution Campaign” item is no longer on the CMI home page. You can find it if you know it’s there by using the search engine, but there’s not an easy way to find it. Also by googling I get no indication that it has had much effect.
(BTW, finished reading the Bible in April. It was a superficial reading, but I did read the whole thing.)