So we have answers to two of the most pressing questions ever raised. Why is there suffering? and Why do people die? The answers are complete, straightforward, concise... yet not difficult to understand. The only objection one might have is that they are somehow too simple, that we have become too sophisticated, that science has pegged such accounts as stories, not facts. This is why the evolution teaching has to go...it is the one obstacle blocking answers to life's most puzzling mysteries.
Now, if evolution was an absolute proven, consistent, can't-get-around-it fact, then we would all simply have to adjust and tell Adam and Eve to take a hike. But, in fact, it is simply nonsense masquerading as science. There! That ought to make some people mad. But stay with us a bit. Maybe we can partly persuade you. Not completely, of course, but maybe partly.
Some try to blend the two, religion and evolution. How can one state that there is an ALLpowerful being who could not create the system known as evolution? they ask. The answer is that one cannot state it. He could create such a system. But, it's the wrong question. The question is not could he, but did he, especially when such an action blows to smithereens the explanations of death and suffering already alluded to.
When I first came across this thinking 35 years ago, I was staggered that I had found people who actually believed in Adam and Eve! They did not look stupid....well, maybe a few of them, just like everywhere else..... yet all my life I had believed...I had been schooled that way...that only the dumbest of the rednecks didn’t believe in evolution. One fellow in the congregation loaned me a book, a predecessor to today's Life....How Did It Get Here, By Evolution or Creation. I didn't like it. I thought it was poorly written and took some cheap shots I did not resolve this subject for a long time. Instead, I decided to shelve it for the time being, since everything else made so much sense.
Many decisions we make that we think are purely rational are, in fact, tainted with more emotion than we at first recognize. I resisted this conclusion for a long time, because it is not the way I would like things to be...it makes people vulnerable to manipulation. The smarter we are, the worse the manipulation can be, since we convince ourselves that it is our mind, not our emotion, telling us to do this or that. Pride comes into the picture, since we tend to be proud of ideas we have reasoned out for ourselves. Pride 'hardens' us in our position. Max Planck, the physicist, said: People think new truths are accepted when the proponents are able to convince the opponents. Instead, the opponents of the truth gradually die, and a new generation comes along who is familiar with the idea. Isn’t it emotion and pride that’s to blame?
The evolution teaching, in both origin and endurance, has strong emotional appeal.
The clergy have fallen far from what they once were. There was a time when they called all the shots…not just in religious life, but in all life. People deferred to the local minister/priest. If you spoke against them, you did so behind their backs, never openly. They enjoyed the highest status and wide respect. And yet they did nothing but abuse the power they had. Especially in Europe, (where Darwin was from) the Church amassed phenomenal wealth, at the expense of the locals. While the clergy lived in luxury, the people lived in squalor. Many Popes were astoundingly immoral/perverted, not merely by pious religious standards, but by any standards. The clergy brought the inquisition, torturing those who challenged their authority. Any notion of science perceived to threaten their status was firmly crushed: for example Copernicus and later Galileo, stating that the earth revolved around the sun, and not vice versa.
The clergy were the chief opponents Bible translation, preferring the Bible to be calcified into long-dead languages that no commoners could understand. Early translators were harassed, sometimes tortured and killed. At times, even those possessing such a Bible were punished. The clergy had good reason to oppose Bible understanding, since the Bible condemned their manner of living...indeed, even the notion of a separate class, who commandeer and make a living off Christian activity, runs counter to the Bible.
The printing press was their undoing. It gave those who opposed church tyranny a voice. Countless new brands of clergy came into existance. But what better way to cut these guys down to size then to remove the very basis of their authority. If it could be shown that life came about spontaneously, without any divine intervention, then the clergy would become, not the guardians of Ultimate Truth, but the guardians of Children's Stories and Nonsense.
This was the emotional appeal of the evolution theory: letting the air out of a pompous, abusive group of people. Of course, this does not prove that evolution is false, only that it is an idea with a strong emotional appeal, something quite apart from its intellectual merits.
It’s the emotional reasons that must keep the theory firmly in place, because the intellectual merits really aren’t that compelling. And, much evidence that is claimed to support evolution can just as easily support creation. For example:
Similarity between life forms….limbs, organs, cellular structure, and so forth. This is claimed as evidence of evolution. Why should it be? Lots of manufactured things share similar design. Automobiles, for instance. If you find a prototype that works, you duplicate it again and again, with variations, in other created things. How does that prove evolution?
Vestigial organs, for example: our appendix, wisdom teeth. These are things we once needed but no longer do, say the evolutionists. Yes, I suppose, but can’t they just as easily be explained in our gradual deteriorating? Having lost perfection, with lifespans plunging from 1000 years to 80, every generation is a little sicker and more fragile then the one before. We can read and accumulate knowledge at a quicker pace then ever before, so human accomplishments increase, but as individuals, every generation is farther from that original perfection.
Variation within a species, such as the differences in finches that Darwin observed on the islands….changes in colors, feet, beaks & so forth. So? Nobody denies that happens. That’s why people look different in different parts of the world. Take a population, isolate them so they can only breed among themselves, and in time, characteristics emerge that are unique to that population. But they always remain people. The evolutionists would claim that, since Darwin observed changes in generations of finches, it means entirely separate life forms evolve? That is a ridiculous leap of faith, on par with any of the religious ideas it would challenge.
The fossil record. This is claimed as the most convincing proof of evolution, as if created beings would not leave behind fossils when they died. The record is not at all convincing. We’ve all heard of the missing link between primates and humans. In fact, there are missing links between all species...it is only the vaguest guesswork and wishful thinking that allows any connection between them. For decades, there was a nice chain of pictures showing the so-called evolution of the horse. (it may still be used, as these notions are slow to be discarded, even after they have been demonstrated to be false) It's now acknowledged that the ancestors are not ancestors at all...they are different animals, a different species, still alive today. The fossil record does not show one species gradually evolving into another, but rather, species that always remains separate and distinct, although there will be variation within them, as in the finches. I wonder what would happen if evolutionists of the distant future found the fossils of a Dinka human (very tall) and a Pygmy human (very short) Would they recognize it as extreme variation within the human family? I am not convinced. I can envision statements that "all the books on human evolution will have to be rewritten...we must re-examine everything we thought was true," and that the evolution trail would go from very short to very tall creatures or vice versa.
If a person believes in God, yet is unaware of the Bible's specific answers on suffering and old age, and if they also are under the impression that evolution is true science (why would anyone not be?), a done deal, then the only reasonable position is to believe God is guiding the evolution process to produce life. But by taking this position, you get the worst of both worlds. It becomes impossible to understand the Bible’s answers to serious questions. And you do not even please true evolutionists, who will sniff that you are a weakling and must use belief in God as a crutch.