Evolution: The Verdict

Posted: July 21, 2010 by Jarrett in Apologetics, Creation, Worldview
Tags: , , , , , ,

 

          Okay, here it is, the fourth and final post in our series on evolution. In the past three posts we’ve taken a look at a basic introduction to evolution and its credibility as a scientific theory. After considering the evidence against evolution, it’s pretty safe to say that its reliability is at the very least highly questionable. That raises a very interesting question: If there are so many problems with evolution, why is it still taught and accepted as a fact? Moreover, why aren’t opposing theories like Intelligent Design and Biblical Creation taught alongside it? After all, in real science, the facts are allowed to be interpreted through opposing theories. In the end, the theory that best explains the facts — and not the other way around — is accepted.

             The reason that evolution is still accepted as fact, the reason evolution is still taught as the truth is not because of its stellar credentials. It is because evolution is a foundational aspect of an entire belief system (worldview). Evolution provides a premise for how life originated without requiring the existence of a Creator. As a result, since there is no room for a Creator in an evolutionary-based worldview, people have no accountability to Him. We would therefore be free to do as we pleased with no lasting, eternal consequences, since we would essentially be extremely intelligent animals that somehow attained consciousness. That makes things kind of convenient if one doesn’t want to believe in God, doesn’t it? No responsibility, no eternity, no worries, right?

             Contrary to what some may believe, ideas do have consequences. Good ideas have good consequences, bad ideas have bad ones. So what kind of consequences does evolution produce? If people are nothing more than cosmic accidents that are highly evolved, then they really don’t have any basic value. After all, what value does an accident have? Accordingly, if people have no value, then the value of life is extremely low. Practices like abortion, euthanasia, genocide and others can simply be justified as steps that need to be taken to thin out “human weeds”. People have no obligation to the well-being of others, since there is no higher standard to appeal to. People are their own standard. Therefore, everyone would be logically justified in doing whatever pleased themselves, regardless of the cost to others. Our only focus in life should be to consume and enjoy, plowing over anything that gets in the way of our desires. Morality does not exist, since there is no higher standard for people to refer to than themselves. Some may argue that morality has evolved with people, since it was considered a valuable genetic trait that furthered the human population. However, this doesn’t fit very logically with the evolutionary belief system. If I’m here as an accident, then I don’t have any obligation to anyone else. Therefore, I am here for no one else but me. If something will make me happy, then it is in my nature to get it, no matter the cost to anyone else — even if it costs them their life. Someone might tell me that I shouldn’t do something for myself because it would endanger or disadvantage someone else, thus throwing a kink in evolutionary progress. However, since I am naturally selfish, I wouldn’t really care about furthering the evolution of my kind. I would exist for myself, and my ultimate goal would be to make myself happy.

             The truth is, people do feel an obligation to a higher standard, whether they want to accept it or not. If we truly stooped down to hold such a low value of ourselves, life would become utter chaos. Tragically, many buy this belief system hook, line and sinker. The result: empty, unfulfilled lives that constantly try to cover their loneliness with material wealth and sensual indulgence. Regardless of how much they try, regardless of how much they gain, it is never enough. If evolution were true, there would be no void, there would be no loneliness. Our selfish pursuits would provide satisfaction. The satisfaction would eventually wear off, but we would just mechanically go back for more. Humans are more complex than that, though. When the satisfaction wears off, there is a deeper longing that just can’t be effectively ignored. We can try, but its gnawing never fully goes away. Humans aren’t materialistic creatures. They have desires that can’t be fully answered by material things. In that case, what does one get when they go beyond the material? They must consider the supernatural.

             Humans are spiritual beings. They can’t be fulfilled with simply food, shelter and rest like any other animal. They need something deeper. They need something that fills the “void of loneliness” that exists in every person. Materialistic evolution cannot explain this need. People can deny its existence, and many can therefore ignore it effectively. However, they are unable to live in absolute consistency with an evolutionary worldview. They hold moral convictions, whether they believe in morality or not. They consider the welfare of others. They treat other people with value, although an evolutionary worldview cannot make sense of this. Evolution degrades humans to a place beside the animals, but it fails to satisfactorily explain what makes humans superior to animals. Could it be that people were created in the image of God? Wouldn’t that explain why life is given value, why morality is important, why we would seek to be considerate of others? If something was created, wouldn’t its Maker have inserted some level of value in His work? God did. He considered his creation to be of such high value, though it was tainted with sin, to be worth the life of His only Son, Jesus. That’s how valuable life is. Evolution considers humans to be material accidents, whereas Christianity identifies humans — all humans — as beings with unspeakable value.

             Consider the evidence. We must decide for ourselves which worldview to believe in. However, remember that ideas always, always have consequences. Know the consequences that a worldview will produce. Never commit to a path before first knowing where it will end.

“There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way to death.”

Proverbs 16:25

Evolution: The Cross-examination

Posted: July 14, 2010 by Jarrett in Apologetics, Creation, Worldview
Tags: , , , ,

         

          Just how much do you appreciate having eyesight? Why does the Oriental sweetlips decide not to chow down on a blue-streak wrasse? How in the world could life possibly start from non-life? I could list quite a few similar questions, but we’ll just take a look at these three for the time being. Although it will be far from a conclusive overview, I think the answers to  these examples will give us a better understanding of the credibility of believing in divine creation. Likewise, I think that they will also point out just how problematic a belief in evolution truly is. This post is obviously not written from a neutral position. I will confidently state that I believe a sovereign God created the universe. However, I hope that after these questions are addressed, it will be easier to see why I have an ample amount of assurance that a sovereign God created the universe. 

            Let’s start off with the human eye. Just how amazing is this little wonder? The human eye is capable of performing automatic aiming, focusing, and aperture adjustment maneuvers in a split-second. It is capable of focusing on an object with the diameter of a fine hair and makes about 100,000 motions every day. A number of finely-tuned muscles and nerves all work together to develop the clear and focused images that make up our sense of sight. So how likely is it that all these amazing capabilities accidentally fell in place so perfectly as to form a fully-functioning human eye? Dr. R. L. Wysong, a Creationist who formerly believed in evolution, calculated that the probability of an eye forming by chance is 1 in 10226 (The Creation-Evolution Controversy, Inquiry Press, 1981, p. 308). That’s a “1″ followed by 226 zeroes. To put this in perspective, there are between 1078 and 1082 atoms in the entire known universe. The odds of an eye forming by chance are tremendously higher than that! And those are just the odds for the eye alone! Think about all the other organs, tissues, and other parts of the human body that would have to evolve alongside the eye! Even the numerous “basic” organs that are essential for life couldn’t evolve separately, because they would not be able to function individually. Needless to say, those odds would be absolutely monstrous. 

            Moving on to exhibit number two, we come across the blue-streak wrasse and the Oriental sweetlips, two fish that have an unusual relationship — with names to match. This odd relationship is more formally labeled a “symbiotic” relationship. In plain English, this means that the wrasse and the sweetlips help each other out. The Oriental sweetlips is a predator fish, so as the day goes along it begins to accumulate plaque and gunk on its teeth. Eventually, the sweetlips heads over to a “cleaning station” manned by blue-streak wrasses. The sweetlips opens its mouth and allows the Wrasses to swim inside and eat out all the plaque and buildup that are stuck to its teeth. As a result, the Wrasses get a free meal, while the sweetlips’  teeth remain healthy. Now here’s the question. Why doesn’t the Oriental sweetlips take a golden opportunity and turn the unsuspecting wrasse into an appetizer? After all, if nature is all about natural selection and survival of the fittest, this bad boy has the wrasses right where he needs them. One could argue that the sweetlips eventually realized how it was actually beneficial to allow the wrasses to clean his teeth, but that goes contrary to the evolution-based belief that all organisms are in a competition and struggle for survival. The sweetlips is bigger, so it ought to take advantage of every opportunity to eat the wrasses. These kinds of relationships are not exclusive to the Oriental sweetlips and the blue-streak wrasse. They occur throughout all Creation. It could be suggested that these animals eventually stumbled upon the realization that these interactions were beneficial. However, I think that it is much more plausible to believe that such relationships were ingrained in these creatures by a sovereign Creator. 

            Last but not least, I’d like to consider an especially challenging dilemma that evolution must face. How did life originate from non-living materials? This is where the language can get really technical and the facts and figures start flowing quite freely, so I’ll just give a simple explanation and leave the complex stuff to the experts. You can follow these two links: (Link 1 Link 2) if you want to dive into those complex explanations. Anyway, the answer is really straightforward: life just doesn’t appear out of nowhere. In fact, the idea that life could originate from non-life — more properly called “spontaneous generation” or “abiogenesis” — was disproved by the famous French scientist Louis Pasteur around 150 years ago. Ironically, this occurred right around the same time Charles Darwin was proposing the possibility of evolution! You can’t throw a bunch of different chemicals together and expect a cell, much less a slug, to pop out. However, this has to be true in order for evolution to have even a chance at getting off the ground. After all, if life didn’t originate by intelligent design, then chance, time, and natural processes all had to work together to combine non-living chemicals in precisely the right order so that life could initially exist.  

            I know this post has dragged on a bit more than I usually allow, so thanks for sticking through it! These are just some of the many examples I can provide that call into question the trustworthiness of evolution. Contrary to what is generally believed, evolution is not a fact. On the contrary, it is a very troubled belief system that suffers immensely from a lack of evidence in support of its position. Just because it appears that the majority (or at least the sources with the most influential voices) support evolution does not make it true. If the facts don’t line up, don’t accept them. Otherwise, if the truth is distorted, horrible and disastrous consequences can result. We will take a look at the consequences that evolution has generated, as well as their cure, in the next and final post.

Check out these links for more interesting info!

Article about the human eye

The Creatures and Biological Structures Evolutionists Don’t Talk About!

Evolution: The Prosecution

Posted: July 8, 2010 by Jarrett in Apologetics, Creation, Worldview
Tags: , , , ,

 

          In the last post we looked at a quick introduction to the theory of evolution and its two “sub-categories”: micro-evolution and macro-evolution. Remember that micro-evolution states that organisms change within their species, while macro-evolution claims that organisms develop from one species to a completely different species. In this entry we’ll take a closer look at macro-evolution. While it may seem pretty obvious that organisms change within their species (some cats have long hair, some have short hair, some lizards are larger than others, etc.), it is quite a different belief that those same cats or lizards could become something like a horse or a bird.  

            Usually, when someone mentions evolution, they are referring to the idea of macro-evolution. Throughout this post and the remaining posts in this series, whenever I refer to “evolution”, “macro-evolution” is the belief I have in mind. I personally find it kind of confusing to distinguish between the “micro” and “macro”, so we’ll keep it simple and just call it evolution. If I do refer to “micro-evolution”, I’ll be sure to point out the distinction. With that said, let’s take a closer look at the initial response to Charles Darwin’s controversial theory. 

            When Darwin first proposed his theory of evolution in the mid to late-1800′s, it sent shockwaves throughout society. Those who denied the existence of God finally had a groundwork and an explanation for the origin of life. Because Darwin’s idea relied only on a matter-based beginning for life with no hint toward the supernatural, atheists, deists, and others who deny God’s existence or involvement with the world had a belief system they could hold up and proclaim as fact. Evidently, there was no longer any need to explain how a supernatural, all-powerful being created the universe. The universe itself had simply come into existence, and somehow we came along with it. 

            Although Darwin’s beliefs were initially very convincing in light of the secular scientific knowledge he had access to, it needs to be pointed out that our current scientific knowledge has advanced quite a bit beyond what was understood in his day. New discoveries in the fields of biology, microbiology, chemistry, and other branches of science have since brought up very valid points of debate. How could life have arisen from non-living matter? How could all of the chemical ingredients necessary for  life have been present — by chance —at the right time and in the proper order? In all fairness to Darwin, many of the facts we have unearthed were not known during his lifetime. However, the idea of evolution is still alive and well today, despite mounting evidence that increasingly threatens its credibility. We will consider one such example in this post, followed by a few more in the next. 

            One of the most deceptively “simple” organisms in all of nature is the cell. During Darwin’s time, cells were essentially considered to be small blobs filled with a jelly-like substance. Only after microbiology took a closer look at these little wonders did their phenomenal complexity come to the surface. Far from being an inactive mass of goo, the cell is an extremely intricate organism that is very crucial for life to exist. Functioning in a variety of tasks, the details surrounding how these tiny life forms function is a study in itself. To get a brief introduction to just how amazing the cell’s role is, check out this video.

Evolution: Presenting The Case

Posted: July 2, 2010 by Jarrett in Apologetics, Creation, Worldview
Tags: , ,

 

This post is the first in a four-part series on evolution. Each new post will be published within a week of the previous entry.

          Out of all the scientific theories introduced in the past couple of centuries, few have equaled the level of controversy and passion that the theory of evolution has prompted. In a series of upcoming posts we will dig into this highly debated topic more thoroughly, considering some terminology regarding evolution, its credibility, and some of the consequences of a worldview grounded in evolution. Because of the broad scope of this topic and the numerous areas it covers — science, sociology, law, etc. —  this series will hardly provide a complete overview. We’ll take a look at some of the most important aspects in the posts, while I will include several links you can follow in order to gain an in-depth study of a certain portion that may interest you. That said, let’s get started.

            As it is typically discussed, evolution is the belief that all living things arose from non-living matter and gradually developed into more complex life forms. There are a variety of explanations concerning how matter came into existence in the first place, but for the time being we’ll take that for granted. Eventually, all the ingredients and conditions necessary for life to exist came together at precisely the right time. As the resulting life form developed and passed on its traits to successive generations, these generations adapted more effectively to their environment. With each new set of adaptations, the organisms became more complex and better suited for survival. Any organisms who were not as fit as their siblings died off, allowing the stronger ones to survive, thus propelling the evolutionary chain onward through billions of years.

            Before we look any closer into this topic, I need to provide a quick clarification for the term “evolution”. In most cases, the term refers to the process stated in the above paragraph — life arising from non-life and gradually developing into more complex organisms. This belief is called “macro-evolution”. However, there is also “micro-evolution”. Micro-evolution refers to changes within a particular species, while macro-evolution refers to changes among species. A good example of micro-evolution can be found in dog breeding. When different kinds of dogs are bred, their offspring possess genetic traits from both parents. This results in an animal that, although somewhat different from its parents, is still a dog. Macro-evolution, on the other hand, holds that something like a fish could gradually develop into an amphibian, like a frog, which could then develop into a lizard, and so on. While micro-evolution (change within species) is very observable in the world around us, we cannot readily study macro-evolution. As a result, macro-evolution — or any other theory about the origin of life — cannot be proved from observation. Since no one who was around at the beginning of time is still alive today, we can only interpret the past by the evidence we see around us in fossils, the geological record, the complexity of life, etc. In the next post, we will consider this topic of macro-evolution more closely.

Ice Cream, Arguments, and Soul-Winning

Posted: May 26, 2010 by Jarrett in Apologetics, The Christian Life
Tags: , , , ,

 

          Is there a particular dessert that you find absolutely mouthwatering?  One of those sweet-tooth satisfying dishes that makes a four-course meal look like a garnish?  All kinds of desserts come to my mind right now, but one in particular seems to stand out.  I really like mint chocolate chip ice cream.  Whenever I realize that there’s a carton of it in the freezer, my mouth gets excited.  Eating a scoop of mint chocolate chip is like having a fireworks show go off in your mouth.  The creamy texture and bold flavor of the cream bursts on your palate, while the chocolate chips go rolling around, tickling your taste buds wherever they travel.  No other ice cream can come close to rivaling the thrill of eating a waffle cone of this mouth-watering flavor.

            Needless to say, mint chocolate chip ice cream is definitely my favorite.  But let’s say I meet someone who can’t say enough about how much they savor a cone of pistachio.  I could suggest that they are mistaken.  I could correct them and explain that what their taste buds truly desire is a delectable bowl of mint chocolate chip.  They would probably counter and say that they were perfectly fine with pistachio, and have no intentions of converting to a different flavor.  And thus the debate could go on and on, until we finally decide to quit and go to Baskin Robbins.

            When the pistachio-lover and I part ways, will anything have been accomplished?  More than likely, no.  If anything, we’ll probably leave even more solidified in our respective ice cream preferences.  Arguing about which flavor is better is ultimately a lost battle on each side — neither person is going to concede their position.  The dispute will go back and forth, back and forth, with no change in sight.  While this may be a rather silly and humorous illustration, there is a much more serious parallel.

            Whenever a Christian witnesses to an unbeliever or engages in apologetics, there is a strong tendency to bring the conversation down to the argument level.  One person presents their position, the other refutes them, and on and on they go.  Nothing is accomplished.  No one is ever going to enter the Kingdom of God because some Christian blasted their position with a superior argument.  It never works that way.  In Matthew 6:44, Jesus said that “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him…”  People are not argued into the Kingdom of God.  They are drawn in by the Father.  When this truth is realized, witnessing and apologetics take on a whole new face.  The burden is not on us to present an argument that wins people to Christ.  We may be the instrument God chooses to use in sharing or defending our faith to someone, but we are never the ones who draw them in.  Our job is to simply share the gospel and give a reason for the hope that we have.  We need to leave the rest up to God.

            The purpose of apologetics is not to create arguments, but to give a response to them.  There is nothing wrong with responding to someone’s challenge, but the response needs to be courteous and loving.  That’s rarely an easy thing to do, especially when you feel hurt and defensive after your faith is challenged.  However, consider what Paul said in 1 Corinthians 13:1-3:

“If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal.  And if I have prophetic powers, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing.  If I give away all I have, and if I deliver up my body to be burned, but have not love, I gain nothing.”

            Whenever we engage in apologetics, our ultimate goal is to point people to the gospel of Jesus Christ.  What they choose to do with our presentation is completely up to them.  As long as we are faithful in our representation of Christ, present an answer for the hope that we have and make our responses in love, we can be content to leave the rest in God’s hands.  Again, none of us come to the Father by our own efforts.  We only come if He draws us. Witnessing and defending the faith are tough assignments, but choosing to give the results over to God make them all the more exciting and refreshing.  Even mint chocolate chip has to take second place in this one.

Older Entries