Society's Dramatic Shift
Why has evolution become so widely accepted, and why has the Bible
come to be viewed with such hostility? What has changed? In this
booklet we examine the foundational premises of evolution. We
consider the evidence evolutionists cite to support the theory.
Perhaps most important, we look at the scientific facts
evolutionists don't discuss in publicfor reasons that will become
clear. You can know whether evolution is true. We hope you'll
examine the evidence carefully. What you believe does matter.
Why has evolution become so widely accepted, and why has the Bible
come to be viewed with such hostility? What has changed?
Only a few generations ago laws prevented the teaching of the
theory of evolution in some communities and regions in the United
States. The Bible was commonly accepted as true and a reliable
account of our origins. But now almost the opposite is true. The
Bible is banned from classrooms in American schools, and serious
discussion of the biblical view of the creation of our universeand
our human originsis forbidden. At the same time, criticism of the
theory of evolution is at times ruthlessly suppressed in academic
and scientific circles.
Certainly not all scientists agree that no Creator exists and that
we as human beings are the product of random chance. In 1972 the
California State Board of Education asked NASA director Wernher von
Braun, who has been called the father of the American space
program, for his thoughts on the origin of the universe, life and
the human race. Here's how he responded: "For me, the idea of a
creation is not conceivable without invoking the necessity of
design. One cannot be exposed to the law and order of the universe
without concluding that there must be design and purpose behind it
all. In the world around us, we can behold the obvious
manifestations of an ordered, structured plan or design . . .
"And we are humbled by the powerful forces at work on a galactic
scale, and the purposeful orderliness of nature that endows a tiny
and ungainly seed with the ability to develop into a beautiful
flower. The better we understand the intricacies of the universe
and all it harbors, the more reason we have found to marvel at the
inherent design upon which it is based . . .
"To be forced to believe only one conclusionthat everything in the
universe happened by chancewould violate the very objectivity of
science itself. Certainly there are those who argue that the
universe evolved out of a random process, but what random process
could produce the brain of a man or the system of the human
eye?
"Some people say that science has been unable to prove the
existence of a Designer. They admit that many of the miracles in
the world around us are hard to understand, and they do not deny
that the universe, as modern science sees it, is indeed a far more
wondrous thing than the creation medieval man could perceive. But
they still maintain that since science has provided us with so many
answers the day will soon arrive when we will be able to understand
even the fundamental laws of nature without a Divine intent.
They challenge science to prove the existence of God. But must we
really light a candle to see the sun? . . .
"What strange rationale makes some physicists accept the
inconceivable electron as real while refusing to accept the reality
of a Designer on the ground that they cannot conceive of Him?"
(Scott Huse, The Collapse of Evolution, 1997, pp. 159-160).
Many educated people accept the theory of evolution. But is it
true? Curiously enough, our existence as humans is one of the best
arguments against it. According to evolutionary theory, the traits
that offer the greatest advantage for survival are passed from
generation to generation. Yet human reproduction itself argues
powerfully against this fundamental premise of evolution.
If evolution is the guiding force in human development, how is it
that higher forms of life evolved with male and female sexes? If
humans are the pinnacle of the evolutionary process, how is it that
we have the disadvantage of requiring a member of the opposite sex
to reproduce, when lower forms of lifesuch as bacteria, viruses
and protozoaare sexless and far more prolific? If they can
reproduce by far simpler methods, why can't we? If evolution is
true, what went wrong?
Let's take it a step further. If humans are the result of evolution
continually reinforcing characteristics that offer a survival
advantage while eliminating those that hinder perpetuation, how can
we explain a human infant?
Among thousands of species the newly born (or newly hatched) are
capable of survival within a matter of days or, in some cases, only
minutes. Many never even see their parents. Yet, among humans, an
infant is utterly helplessnot for days but for up to several years
after birth.
A human baby is reliant on adults for the nourishment, shelter and
care he or she needs to survive. Meanwhile, caring for that
helpless infant is a distinct survival disadvantage for adults,
since giving of their time and energy lessens their own prospects
for survival.
If evolution is true, and humans are the pinnacle of the
evolutionary process, why does a process as basic as human
reproduction fly in the face of everything that evolution holds
true?
Regrettably, such obvious flaws in the theory are too often
overlooked.
Even Charles Darwin, whose theories about evolution took the world
by storm, had second thoughts. In his later years he reflected on
what he had started: "I was a young man with unformed ideas. I
threw out queries, suggestions, wondering all the time over
everything; and to my astonishment the ideas took like wildfire.
People made a religion of them" (William Federer, America's God and
Country, 1996, p. 199, emphasis added).
Now, almost a century and a half after the publication of Darwin's
Origin of Species, we can see where his thinking has led. In Europe
in particular, belief in a personal God has plummeted. In the
United States, court decisions have interpreted constitutional
guarantees of freedom of religion as freedom from
religioneffectively banning public expression of religious beliefs
and denying the country's rich religious heritage.
Meanwhile, the world languishes in the sorrow and suffering
resulting from rejecting absolute moral standards. With no absolute
standards, we have no reason to care what happens to our fellowman.
We should seek only our personal gain regardless of the cost to
othersacting exactly as evolutionary theory says we should.
Could man create a religion with no god? The widespread acceptance
of evolution shows that we have done just that. The Bible teaches
us that God created man. Evolution teaches us that man created
God.
If God created man we have no right to ignore Him. If man created
God we can easily ignore Him. What man has made he can do away
with. Thus we are free to act as though God doesn't exist, free to
dismiss the Bible, free to determine for ourselves what is right
and wrong and how we will choose to live.
Which is the myth, God or evolution? Louis Bounoure, director of
France's Strasbourg Zoological Museum and professor of biology at
the University of Strasbourg, stated: "Evolution is a fairy tale
for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of
science. It is useless" (Federer, p. 61).
Professor Bounoure, though right about evolution, was wrong about
one thing. Rather than being useless, evolution is quite useful if
one wants to reject the idea of God.
You can know whether evolution is true. We hope you'll examine the
evidence carefully. What you believe does matter.
