The 10 Things You Should Know About the Creation vs. Evolution Debate (2 page)

Darwin, so well-known for evolutionism, acknowledges in
his autobiography that he was once a creationist, though this
shouldn't be taken to mean he was a devout Christian who
believed in biblical inerrancy." Even prior to writing On the
Origin ofSpecies, Darwin had "honest and conscientious doubts"
about Christianity, which he expressed to his wife, Emma. 12 He
says he wanted to believe in the afterlife but found the evidence
for Christianity unconvincing. Emma was greatly disturbed by
all this. Darwin's faith in Christianity waned as his evolutionist views gained strength.13

Heavily influenced by David Hume (who wrote an
academic treatise against miracles and the supernatural)," Darwin
increasingly came to distrust the Bible and found more and more
problems with anything supernatural. In his autobiography,
Darwin argued "that the clearest evidence would be requisite to
make any sane man believe in miracles by which Christianity
is supported-that the more we know of the fixed laws of nature
the more incredible do miracles become-that the men of that
time [in biblical history] were ignorant and credulous to a degree
almost incomprehensible by us-that the Gospels cannot be
proved to have been written simultaneously with the eventsthat they differ in many important details, far too important as
it seemed to me to be admitted as the usual inaccuracies of eyewit-
nesses."15 Darwin's confidence in Christianity plummeted.16

The problem of evil ("why do bad things happen to good
people") caused Darwin's confidence in Christianity to further erode, especially when his beloved ten-year-old daughter, Annie,
died in 1851. In Annie's Box: Charles Darwin, His Daughter, and
Human Evolution, written by Randal Keynes (the great-greatgrandson of Charles Darwin), we read that "when Annie fell
ill, Darwin was at her bedside day and night, doing all he could
for her, making copious notes about her deteriorating health,
bringing her `beautifully good' tea." The pain of losing his
daughter "cast a shadow over Darwin's thinking about the natural world and the struggle for life. Her death also inflamed the
mental turmoil over religion and the existence of God that he
had experienced since his return from the voyage of HMS Beagle
[a voyage during which he did evolutionary research] ."" Keynes
notes that "after Annie's death, Charles set the Christian faith
firmly behind him. He did not attend church services with the
family; he walked with them to the church door, but left them
to enter on their own."" Darwin solidified his views on naturalistic evolution during this time.

Eight years later, in 1859, Darwin wrote On the Origin of
Species, which has been called "one of the most important books
ever written" and "a book that shook the world. "'9 In this book,
Darwin spoke of the differences between members of a particular species. This is called "variation." Darwin taught that more
members are born in each species than can possibly survive to
adult maturity. In view of limited resources, each member of
a species must compete with other members of the same species
for survival. Those who survive and mature to adulthood are
simply the fittest in that species. This is called the "survival of
the fittest."

Darwin subsequently argued that these fit members of the
species passed on their fitness to their descendants by positive
mutations. As this process continued over millions (possibly
billions) of years, guided by "natural selection," not only changes
in individual species but also entirely new species emerged. This
is the heart of evolutionary theory.

Certainly an important reason why the creation-evolution
debate matters is that a person's view of his own origins will
profoundly affect not only the way he looks at himself but also
his general attitude toward other people. It will affect his personal
sense of morality,20 as well as his worldview and personal philosophy of life.21 In short, whether a person thinks he was specially
created by God or was just a cosmic accident will play a large
role in molding who he is for the rest of his life.

Without a God who created us, we are just the chance product (or cosmic accident) of random mutations over billions of
years, and humanity is not unique. We are not responsible to
God and have no divine commandments to obey.22 All this talk
about sin and repentance is just a lot of hot air. We have no
need for a Savior, no need to trust in Christ. Man is the master
of his own destiny; he is his own god. Ultimately, life has no
real purpose. Man is adrift in a purposeless universe.23 This life
is all that exists, and we have no afterlife to look forward to.
We will face no future judgment. In short, as Cornell biologist
William Provine put it, Darwinism implies "no life after death,
no ultimate foundation for ethics, no ultimate meaning for
life. "24

On the other hand, if a Creator does exist, we are not accidents, and we are meant to be here. If creationism is the correct
view, man does have a purpose in life, and that purpose is to
serve the Creator. We are responsible to govern our lives according to the revelation given to us by the Creator (the Bible). Man
will one day have to give an accounting to the Creator for his
actions. Man is not the master of his own fate. Man is a creature responsible to the Creator. And in view of man's sin problem, man is very much in need of a Savior. Quite obviously,
then, the creation-evolution debate matters a great deal.

For Christians, I can point to further reasons why the debate
matters. For example, if evolution is correct, then the book of Genesis must be mere myth. And if the book of Genesis cannot
be trusted, how can the rest of the Bible be trusted? Genesis is
foundational to the rest of the Bible, and if it is fictional, then
the rest of Scripture is undermined as well.

Certainly portions of the New Testament would seem impossible to believe if the book of Genesis proved to be fictional.
After all, quite a number of verses in the New Testament directly
refer to the creation account and give every indication of accepting its historicity (for example, see Luke 3:38; Romans 5:14;
1 Corinthians 11:9; 15:22; 2 Corinthians 11:3; 1 Timothy 2:13-
14). All in all, more than 60 verses in the New Testament either
quote from or allude to the first three chapters of Genesis.25 If
Genesis is myth, what do we make of these verses?

Further, what do we make of Jesus Christ, who Himself
accepted the account of the creation of Adam and Eve (Matthew
19:4; Mark 10:6; see also Genesis 1:27; 2:24) as well as the
historicity of the flood during Noah's time (Matthew 24:38;
Luke 17:27)? If Jesus was wrong about this, then how can we
trust anything else He said in the New Testament? As one
Christian scholar put it, "If Genesis is not historically dependable, then Jesus is not a dependable guide to all truth, and we
are without a savior."26

Conversely, however, if Jesus is God and is therefore omniscient (all-knowing), then His confirmation of the creation
account in Genesis serves as a powerful stamp of approval that
Genesis is not myth but is historically dependable. More than
one Christian scholar has observed that Jesus often seems to have
specifically given credence to portions of the Old Testament that
would one day be undermined and scorned by critics (see, for
example, Matthew 19:4 and Luke 17:29).27

Earlier in the chapter I documented how evolutionism caused
Darwin to lose his faith. Since his day, Darwin's experience has been repeated numerous times in the lives of many people.
Philosopher Huston Smith has suggested that evolutionary
theory has caused more people to lose religious faith than any
other factor." Philosopher Daniel Dennett has approvingly
spoken of Darwinism as a "universal acid" that corrodes traditional spirituality29 "Like universal acid, the theory of evolution eats through just about every traditional religious idea.""

Of course, all this is good news for atheists, who hold to
the philosophy of naturalism. In fact, one atheist boasts that
Darwinism enables a person to be an "intellectually fulfilled atheist."" Such atheists find no need for supernatural explanations
regarding man's origin. As stated in the Humanist Manifesto II
(signed by such luminaries as author Isaac Asimov, psychologist B.F. Skinner, and ethicist Joseph Fletcher), "We find insufficient evidence for belief in the existence of a supernatural; it
is either meaningless or irrelevant to the question of the survival
and fulfillment of the human race. As nontheists, we begin with
humans not God, nature not deity. "32

Such atheists have no need for God to bring meaning to
man's origins and man's current life. In his book, What Is Secular
Humanism? Dr. James Hitchcock states:

Groups like the American Humanist Association
are not humanists just in the sense that they have an
interest in the humanities or that they value man over
nature.... In their self-definition, God does not exist....
They promote a way of life that systematically excludes
God and all religion in the traditional sense. Man, for
better or worse, is on his own in the universe. He marks
the highest point to which nature has yet evolved, and
he must rely entirely on his own resources.33

Isaac Asimov, one of the most prolific authors and science
writers of all time, is bluntly honest regarding his disbelief in
God:

I am an atheist, out and out. It took me a long time
to say it. I've been an atheist for years and years, but
somehow I felt it was intellectually unrespectable to
say one was an atheist, because it assumed knowledge
that one didn't have. Somehow it was better to say one
was a humanist or an agnostic. I finally decided that
I'm a creature of emotion as well as of reason. Emotionally I am an atheist. I don't have the evidence to
prove that God doesn't exist, but I so strongly suspect
he doesn't that I don't want to waste my time.34

Likewise, famous evolutionary scientist Carl Sagan asserted
at the beginning of his Cosmos television series on PBS, "The
Cosmos is all that is or ever was or ever will be. "35 In other words,
we need not concern ourselves with any deity.

Evolutionists scoff at the idea that a Creator brought things
into being. Asimov tells us that the "universe can be explained
by evidence obtained from the Universe alone... no supernatural agency need be called upon."36 The explanation of man's
origin is always the theory of evolution.

Frederick Edwords, in an article published in The Humanist magazine, explains man's origin this way:

Human beings are neither entirely unique from
other forms of life nor are they the final product of
some planned scheme of development.... All life forms
are constructed from the same basic elements, the same
sorts of atoms, as are nonliving substances.... Humans are the current result of a long series of natural
evolutionary changes, but not the only result or the
final one. Continuous change can be expected to affect
ourselves, other life forms, and the cosmos as a whole.
There appears to be no ultimate beginning or end to
this process 37

Humanists have even produced children's books that argue
against any role for a Creator-God. Most children today are
aware of the Berenstain Bears books. In one of these books, Papa
Bear explains to his son that "Nature is you, nature is me. It's
all that is or was or ever will be."38 These words sound amazingly similar to Sagan's: "The Cosmos is all that is or ever was
or ever will be."39

Humanist Chris Brockman wrote a children's book entitled,
What About Gods? In this book we read, "We no longer need
gods to explain how things happen. By careful thinking, measuring, and testing we have discovered many of the real causes
of things, and we're discovering more all the time. We call this
thinking."40

Of course, such humanists see no divine purpose for humanity in the world. The Humanist Manifesto II asserts, "We can
discover no divine purpose or providence for the human species.
While there is much that we do not know, humans are responsible for what we are or will become. No deity will save us; we
must save ourselves."" In other words, we are all alone in this
great big universe, with no ultimate purpose or destiny.

Nor is there an afterlife to look forward to. In his book
Forbidden Fruit: The Ethics of Humanism, humanist leader Paul
Kurtz said that "the theist's world is only a dream world; it is
a feeble escape into a future that will never come."42 Kurtz also
stated, "Promises of immortal salvation or fear of eternal damnation are both illusory and harmful. They distract humans from
present concerns, from self-actualization, and from rectifying
social injustices." He asserts: "There is no credible evidence that
life survives the death of the body. We continue to exist in our
progeny and in the way that our lives have influenced others
in our culture. "13 In other words, as we continue to evolve, we
will hopefully pass on to our descendants positive virtues and
characteristics. And that's the end of it!

What a tragic worldview! I think I am safe in saying,
however, that some of recent history's most well-known atheistic evolutionists-men like Isaac Asimov, Carl Sagan, and
Stephen Jay Gould-have had a sobering change of heart on
all this, since they are no longer among the land of the living.
What a horrible thing it must be to believe in and dogmatically teach atheistic evolution-denying the Creator-God's existence-only to die and suddenly realize that your entire life was
spent defending a lie.

Another reason why the creation-evolution debate matters
is that evolutionary theory has had a detrimental effect on society, including (but not limited to) providing a philosophical
foundation and justification for such social injustices as Nazism,
racism, and sexism.

Nazism. Many people may be unaware of the connection
between Adolf Hitler and evolutionism. Hitler was a Darwinian
evolutionist, and he sought to implement a "survival of the fittest"
philosophy in Germany.44 How ironic that in the struggle for
the survival of the fittest, Hitler and his Nazi thugs were apparently proven the weaker.45