Are evolutionists circling the wagons?

Recently I came across the current issue of a well-known science magazine that has a top-10 list that "pays tribute to the exceptional foresight and accomplishment of a select group whose achievements, particularly during the past year, stand out from those of their peers." It is a salute to "Ten researchers, politicians, business executives and philanthropists who have recently demonstrated outstanding commitment to assuring that the benefits of new technologies and knowledge will accrue to humanity."

One of the people praised in this list is a lady whose efforts over nearly the past three decades have had a major impact on the elimination of any sort of questioning and critiquing of the Theory of Evolution in nearly all school jurisdictions in the United States. This has gone hand-in-hand with the elimination of any discussion of creationism. The article's author seems to subtly hail her as a champion of halting attempts against "the campaign to peddle creationism" in America's classrooms, as a "loyal defender of teaching evolution in the schools". The author also seems to arouse suspicion against anyone who has "the intent to discredit Darwin".

Evolutionists who are honest with themselves admit that there is no solid fossil evidence for their claims, only fanciful scenarios. And recent findings about the astounding biochemical complexity of living organisms, particularly humans, that literally screams "Created!" and "Planned!" and "Ordered!" has left evolutionists scrambling to figure out and trying in vain to explain how such things came about through absolutely no thought, no creative hand, and totally unplanned, random, mutative forces. What about the structured and coded genetic information that forms the template of this complexity? Did this information just "appear"? Could something so complex and intricate and brilliant have just "happened"? Did complexity know how to form itself out of chaos and randomness?

These things are even harder to explain when one considers how far less complex things, like computers, have been the subject of decades of creative development and effort by the most brilliant of human minds. People would laugh - perhaps consider you insane - if you insisted that a computer was the product of thoughtless, random, mutative forces. Nevertheless, people still buy into the Theory of Evolution - despite totally contradicting proven laws like the Laws of Thermodynamics, for example - with some going so far as to ban its questioning and criticism in schools, like the person praised and hailed in this article.

My first reaction to this article was initially one of defensiveness, since I'm obviously against any attempts to stifle the questioning and criticism of Evolutionism in the science classroom. However nothing, and I mean nothing - including God, Jesus, and the Bible - should ever be stuck in a bell jar and rendered immune to scrutiny and examination. The same should go for ideas like the Theory of Evolution. As for God, He still works despite being scrutinized and examined by people, continually reaching through to the hearts of even His fiercest critics as He sees fit (of which I was once one).

Anyhow, after I thought about this article, I started to realize several things over the next half hour that brought a grin to my face, and I was actually excited about what I had read.

The first thing I realized is that if the Theory of Evolution is so infallible and on such solid footing, then why are its proponents so scared of allowing it to any longer be the subject of debate? Could it be that the "agenda" evolutionists accuse creationists of having is exactly what evolutionists themselves have, that of controlling our educational system and society? Is it possible that the accusation of "hypocrisy" leveled by evolutionists and other non-believers against creationists and believers in God is the exact same thing that evolutionists can be accused of?

Seeing how their world-view currently dominates academic and media circles, and essentially directs the course of western culture, it's understandable how evolutionists wouldn't want anyone in these institutions to be allowed to poke yet more holes in their theory. They have a lot to lose, like research funding, job security, credibility, status, wealth, control, and so on.

Perhaps being open to public debates has damaged their cause too much. I remember attending a debate between an atheist and William Lane Craig. The topic was something like 'Does God exist?' and not a specific evolutionist vs. creationist debate, although these topics were repeatedly brought up by atheist and believer alike. Craig was being goaded by both parties to make these the actual topics in question. To Craig's credit, he respectfully brought the discussion back to the idea of God's existence at every attempt of diversion.

Anyhow, rather than the browbeating that the atheists and evolutionists in the crowd were expecting Craig to receive, there were of course still the die-hard skeptics at the end of the debate, but the mood amongst several of the more open-minded skeptics was instead one of greater openness to the idea of the existence of God. In fact, it could be concluded that the debate massively back-fired on the atheists and evolutionists as some of their own were respectfully and inquisitively asking Craig more about his ideas while the die-hard faithful were murmuring and leaving in disgust.

If this was the only story I could tell about skeptics being tipped in favor of God by the end of a debate about the existence of God or the merits of there being a Creator, then I wouldn't have mentioned it. But I've heard and read of many similar outcomes to debates such as these. My point is that perhaps evolutionists have had enough of being open to the questioning and criticism of their ideology. It not only gives creationists a fair platform to present the merits of their views, but the end result is usually the erasing of many stereotypes about creationism, God, the Bible, and so forth. Stifling debate is therefore the best solution that evolutionists have at this point if they wish to maintain their dominance over world thought and culture.

The next thing I realized is that evolutionists are employing the exact same tactics of oppression and suppression that powerful religious orders have used and been condemned for by non-believers in order to preserve their ideology and control over the masses. Unfortunately, most people confuse such religious control and tyranny as coming from God instead of realizing that these are force tactics created by greedy humans. God allows people to have free will as to whether or not they choose to believe in Him. I've never known of any person in this modern age, outside of a man-made religious order, who has ever been forced to love or believe in God. It's a love gift of choice that God has given to us.

It is only the greed of men that has ever forced God onto another person. And it is the greed of men that now forces evolutionist ideology into the classroom and forces any questioning and criticism about this ideology out of it. And it is this greed that also swarms onto opponents of their ideology in the form of ridicule and lawsuits.

Therefore, evolutionism has become the new world religion. The greatest accusers of religion and God have become religious themselves. Like the religious orders that have been created throughout history by people that have claimed to believe in God, and all too often used to stifle opposition to their ideology through intimidation and ridicule, evolutionism and its followers now stop at nothing to prevent any and all questioning and criticism of its ideology.

After considering these things, I realized that this aggressive posturing on the part of evolutionists is actually an increasingly a defensive one. At the point where the Roman Catholic Church was at its peak of control over Europe, it was a very aggressive religious system. It was a system of total intolerance to any sort of questioning and criticism about it, and those spoken to by God like Martin Luther who dared to speak out against it were unfortunately subject to far more than ridicule by those in power who didn't want to lose any of their job security, credibility, status, wealth, control, and so on.

However, as people like Luther began to gain a following through successfully exposing the rampant hypocrisies of this system, one claiming to exist in the name of God but acting out the opposite, the aggression on the part of the Church against its critics started to become an increasingly defensive one. As it began to realize that the end of its dominance was near and it could no longer hold onto its authoritarian grip, it began to "circle the wagons", so to speak; it got into self-preservation mode because remaining openly aggressive might have left it vulnerable to total extinction due to the forces acting against it.

Articles like the one I recently read lead me to wonder if evolutionists are not doing the same. By actively trying to stifle opposition to their ideology in schools and the media, they are essentially shrinking in to a defensive position. Around them, an increasing number of academics are beginning to openly question the Theory of Evolution, and the response of evolutionists hasn't been to take the high road of being open to debate. Rather, although they are still on the attack, they are also becoming increasingly defensive.

Does this article signal the beginning of the end of the dominance of evolutionist thought over our modern world? Even if this tower should crumble, another godless ideology will arise simply because there will always be people who wish to discredit God. Whether it will be under the guise of science, which evolutionism claims to be but clearly is not (it is actually a philosophy, a theory with no scientific validity or reproducibility), remains to be seen.

Nevertheless, it was exciting for me to see evidence in this article of evolutionists beginning to shake in their boots. Their theory, which has been used to justify racism, sexism, and genocide across our globe in the past 150 years, might well be coming to an end.

Faith involves the unknown

I made the argument in a previous post that everyone has faith, but that not everyone has faith in God. At the end of that post, I brought up the objection that some non-believers make about how it's hard to believe in a God that you can't sense and experience, one that you can't see, touch, hear, taste, or smell.

The problem with us as humans is that we rely too much on our five senses. Unless we can quantify something and wrap our brains around it and neatly 'put it in a box', we tend to dismiss it altogether. We call it myth, or folklore, or superstition and the like. So because God doesn't make Himself known through our five senses, because He isn't quantifiable, because what we read about Him in the Bible is so mysterious and unlike the ways of mankind, and because we can't boil Him down into a formula or simple means of understanding and put Him in a 'box', we relegate Him to being the figment of an over-active imagination. We make fun of his believers as needing a "crutch" like their imaginary God to get them through life instead of bucking up and fighting through it on their own strength.

I find it interesting how people will dismiss the existence of God for these reasons, but they'll believe in alternate theories about why we're here, even when there is minimal "evidence" to support that theory and the proponents of the theory are greatly divided in their stance.

Perhaps you know where I'm going with this, so here goes. The most popular theory that non-believers use to explain the origin of life is the Theory of Evolution. Non-believers will tend to accept what its proponents say without question because, among other things, it gives them an excuse to reject the Biblical notion that they are created beings accountable to their Creator. They can reject the Biblical teaching about how they will meet God face-to-face at the start of eternity and have to give an account of their lives. They can reject what the Bible says about how we need to be forgiven of our sins by coming to Jesus - God's only appointed mediator between God and man - and asking to be forgiven. They can reject the Biblical description of heaven and hell and instead assume that we have no soul or spirit and will eventually die out and become nothing, much like a dead flower or blade of grass.

They will grasp at anything that stands defiantly in the face of God, thinking that some body of man-made thought will somehow destroy this God or render him impotent.

To believe in the Theory of Evolution takes a great deal of faith, and the evolutionist has made Evolution their god inasmuch as the believer has made God their god. The evolutionist has made the assumption that the believer has operated strictly on blind faith, when the reality is the evolutionist is the only one who has done this.

That the meagre scraps of inconclusive evidence and non-cohesive assumptions collected over 150 years have yet to elevate this theory to the level of the "Fact" or the "Law" of Evolution are evidence that faith involves the unknown. The evolutionist simply cannot go back in time and prove that their assumptions are true; they can only have faith in them. They have to assume that this-or-that fossil represents proof that one species suddenly decided to become another even though no conclusive evidence has ever been found of a "transitional" species. But on and on they plod because the death of their belief system would mean only God will be left standing.

The creationist also cannot go back in time and prove that by simply speaking, God caused an entire universe to leap into existence. One can, however, look at the enormous body of evidence - provided mostly by non-believers like archaeologists - that give credibility to the places, names, and events of the Bible and use this to give credibility to the Bible as a whole. In fact, it is no exaggeration that the body of physical evidence to support the Bible far exceeds that used to support the Theory of Evolution.

Don't want to take my word for this? Then simply WITH AN OBJECTIVE MIND start to research this evidence for yourself. Many have done the same and concluded in God's favor, but perhaps you have that special edge that will finally - after thousands of years - conclusively disprove God, the Bible, and Jesus and the miraculous transformative power of them in peoples' lives. A power that operates worldwide regardless of race, socio-economic status, political system, or a person's background. A power that is the envy of psychologists and psychiatrists the world over.

So although you can't see, touch, hear, taste, or smell God Himself, the evidence of His handywork is all around us, according to the Bible: The complex yet perfect intricacy of ecosystems and the creatures that live therein. The structure and operation of the human eye, which no amount of human creative effort has yet to duplicate in the form of lenses and cameras. The intricacy of musculo-skeletal movements and their interaction with the brain that still leave computer programmers, engineers, and the medical profession dumbfounded. I could go on and on.

If these enormous creative attempts on the part of humans in no way duplicate what is found in nature, then who are we to think that nature has come about apart from creative forces? And who are we to think that these forces operate on random chance without a Creator behind them?

We don't need to see the Creator Himself because the evidence of His work alone should be all we need to believe in the existence of this unseen God. With evidence like this, faith in His existence isn't really too difficult after all!