The elegance of the naturalistic model notwithstanding, in the end, what are we really sure of? No panel of dignified researchers or masters of rhetoric arguing in favor of the superiority of the evolution scenario can override the doubt that should settle in the minds of those who understand the sheer enormity of the hurdles faced by the naturalistic origins of life, and likewise the impossible macroevolutionary progression of that life.
Likewise, those who see the obvious lack of evidence to support the gradual transition of species from simple to complex – and from one kind to another – should listen well to those who promote such things, hearing intently the nature of their arguments, weighing the value of their claims against that which is known. Theirs is a model of assumption and belief in spite of the obvious.
Still, the secular authorities, due to their particular allegiances, have no choice but to continue to promote the deception. Evolution is the basis for the mainstream field of biology, and without it no acceptable alternative is forthcoming. This of course is absolutely intolerable to the field’s leaders and their followers. They cannot and will not accept any explanation that is open to supernatural influence. As world-famous evolutionist and professor of genetics, Richard Lewontin, puts it:
“We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.”(1)
Lewontin is not alone in his assertions that alternatives to naturalism should be excluded from consideration. One observer declared “Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such a hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic.”(2) More to the point are the words of the evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr, who frankly stated, “Darwinism rejects all supernatural phenomena and causations.”(3) Is their absolute reliance to secular naturalism solely the product of their scientific worldview, or is there a deeper truth? Dr. Michael Behe, in regard to this, said:
“Many people, including many important and well-respected scientists, just don’t want there to be anything beyond nature. They don’t want a supernatural being to affect nature, no matter how brief or constructive the interaction may have been.”(4)
Truthfully, if we are honest, we find that to be the case over and over again. There is an insistence against the obvious that is ingrained in the hearts of most dedicated naturalists, passed on with dogged commitment to their lay disciples, and nothing short of a miracle could have them see the truth that stands before them.
One of the most common maxims in materialistic dogma is that concerning Occam’s Razor, whereby assumptions are to be put aside, in effect advocating that the simplest answer is often the most accurate. Opponents of creationism often rely on this concept, declaring that strict naturalism fits the model of Occam’s Razor best, excluding any and all assumptions concerning the divine or supernatural. Conversely however, could not the antithesis be more likely, whereby our existence – in spite of the incredible naturalistic hurdles – has been made possible only through the efforts of something supernatural? Still, contrary to the obvious, standing in stark opposition to the facts and nature itself, many do not believe, and more join that demographic daily.
It should go without saying that I am utterly convinced that our existence is in itself a validation of a supernatural intervention, and that the unmitigated biological facts categorically testify to that truth. Taken along with all that I have come to know from other sources, from history, geology, philosophy, logic, and a number of other areas, I am absolutely committed to and inspired by the truth and authority of the Christian Bible, knowing that it’s record of events, from creation onward to the Global Flood, across its pages to the end and beyond, have been more than sufficiently vindicated in my heart and my mind. Furthermore, I accept on the basis of faith that, through the moral failure of our Edenic parents, sin was introduced to this creation by deception and a rejection of the authority of God’s commands. That fateful, ancestral failure was precipitated by the First of the Fallen asking our ancestors to question God’s authority, followed by the promise that they too could be gods if they would but disobey their Father. I believe that too to be true, and in my studies of the evolution paradigm, it comes into play time and again.
Millennia ago, the lie that led the first of us away from our creator came from parted lips rimmed in cold, gleaming scales. Today, the lie continues, a dangerous deception hidden in the guise of truth.
As critical as members of the intellectual elite and their disciples are of creationists, they should understand that their belief in the evolution model is far more demanding of faith than the Christian’s belief in a Creator. What hope did any new life on the early planet have in forming against the hurdles discussed just within these pages? Could anyone seriously believe that such happened, and did so with such randomly-generated precision that life not only appeared but flourished? How far does one have to go to honestly overlook such things, to figuratively hide their eyes against the reality before them? For them, we – the creationists, the believers – are the ignorant and the deceived that trust in myth and fairy tales. You be the judge.
For those who wish to put their faith in the authorities simply because they seem to know what they are talking about, consider that the intellectual elite have not always been correct:
“Fooling around with alternating current is just a waste of time. Nobody will use it, ever.”– Thomas Edison, 1889
“There is not the slightest indication that nuclear energy will ever be obtainable. It would mean that the atom would have to be shattered at will.”– Albert Einstein, 1932
“X-rays will prove to be a hoax.”– Lord Kelvin, President of the Royal Society, 1883
There can be little doubt that many, perhaps even most, of those who ardently dismiss creationism know the facts are against their secular models. They however are required to stand by their faulty assertions, to continuously support the mainstream faith in evolution. That of course is what it is, faith in the religion of secular naturalism. At its core is a tide of belief that dismisses all evidence to the contrary, its adherents diligently – perhaps blindingly – crafting a tapestry of imaginary concepts and images to bolster the tale.
The evolution paradigm, in spite of all the support it receives from mainstream authorities, is not and cannot be true science. It has not been observed. It is not testable, nor is it repeatable through conventional methods. Even Miller himself said of the naturalistic origins of life, “We’re trying to discuss a historical event, which is very different from the usual kind of science, and so criteria and methods are very different.“(5)
To further demonstrate the religiosity of the evolution paradigm, the definition of “religion” found in the eleventh edition of Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, described as “a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith.” That said, is it not possible to classify both naturalism – and its byproduct atheism – as a form of religion? After all, it is a worldview based on beliefs that cannot be categorically proven or demonstrated in reality. As ironic as it is considering their vilification of Christianity and other religions, the evolution paradigm requires blind faith, calling on its believers to trust in that which cannot be seen or known, and with little substantive evidence from history to authentically bolster their claims. Also like other religions, these secularists have several understood dogmas and doctrines, pontificated by its own holy men no less; the boisterous leaders of their faith, intolerantly condemning all those who refuse to see the truth in what they preach. This faith, this growing demographic of the evolutionarily devout, are but the latest to rise in the calling of the First Lie, still clinging to that original hope that we too could be gods.
In the end, what are we left with? People have a choice to make, and it is absolutely critical in how they will view and interact with the world around them. Are we – indeed life in general – the byproducts of a cosmic accident long ago? Have we – against absolutely impossible odds – rose from humble beginnings amidst thick primordial waters to our current position of dominion? Will we yet – by merit of our evolutionary advantages and technology – transcend our own humanity in the pursuit of the transhumanist ideal, systematically replacing religion with dreams of binary immortality, life artificially prolonged and enhanced through biotechnology and nanorobotics, reshaping mankind as physical and digital gods?
Alternatively, are we the direct creations of an intelligence that formulated the vast intricacies that drive biology, creating the amino acids, proteins, nucleic acids, and ribosomes required simultaneously, and packaging them within the complex workings of living cells? Could that Creator have instituted a range of life forms, all based upon the same organic foundations, yet intrinsically different, remaining specific to their own kinds despite the genetic capability to change and adapt appropriately to environmental and other conditions? Could that Creator have crafted us too – His special creations – for which all the remainder of this reality was brought about for? Could this life only be a prelude to the eternity that follows?
In fact, the latter, in all aspects, is precisely what the Book of Genesis, indeed the Christian Bible as in whole, records.
When we actually look at the reality presented to us, no matter if you are an atheist, a Christian, or something else, it must be admitted that pure naturalism simply cannot be so, that blind and chaotic chance cannot explain what we see and what our tests reveal. It is undeniably clear that more is going on behind the scenes, something supernatural, something Divine.
Furthermore, for those who embrace evolution as a means through which the Creator reared life and crafted the forms that we see, there is no reason to justify it. Whether the paradigm is supplemented with the divine or not, the available evidence simply does not merit support for the macroevolution aspect of the evolution paradigm. Why should anyone compromise their Biblical beliefs in order to force a false doctrine that has no justification? Many have been fooled, and the time to accept the truth in its entirety is now.
Friend, do not be deceived. Do not accept the secular religion of naturalism. Do not buy into a false version of reality by embracing its evolutionary teachings. Do not allow yourself to be swayed by the slick diagrams and concept art, the intriguing presentations, the mainstream interpretations of so-called transitional fossils, or the misleading evidence for contemporary evolution. Do not let them make you ignorant to the world as it truly is. Keep in mind the words of one observer, who wrote:
“We cannot identify ancestors or “missing links, and we cannot devise testable theories to explain how particular episodes of evolution came about. …all the popular stories about how the first amphibians conquered the dry land, how the birds developed wings and feathers for flying, how the dinosaurs went extinct, and how humans evolved from apes are just products of our imagination, driven by prejudices and preconceptions.”(6)
The greatest lie ever told is still – since the beginning – in circulation today, spread by those who either know no better or who simply wish it to be so, for they fear the alternative and its implications…
Notes & References:
- Lewontin, Richard, “Billions and Billions of Demons,” review of the Demon-Haunted World, by Carl Sagan, In New York Review of Books, January 9, 1997
- Todd, Scott C., “A View from Kansas on the Evolution Debates,” Nature (vol. 401, September 30, 1999), p. 423
- Mayr, Ernst, “Darwin’s Influence on Modern Thought,” Scientific American (vol. 283, July 2000), pg. 83
- Cited by Gary Bates, “Alien Intrusion”, Powder Springs, Georgia, Creation Book Publishers,[Fifth Printing] 2010, pg. 138
- Horgan, J., “The End of Science: Facing the Limits of Knowledge in the Twilight of the Scientific Age,” Addison-Wesley, Reading, pg. 139, 1996
- Bowler, Peter J., Review “In Search of Deep Time” by Henry Gee (Free Press, 1999), American Scientist (vol. 88, March/April 2000), pg. 169
– This was an excerpt from “Remnants of Eden: Evolution, Deep-Time, & the Antediluvian World.” Get your copy here today. God bless! –
FOUNDRY4 is a proud member of the International Association for Creation