Several months ago, I was involved in an online debate over evolution vs. creation. The debate went pretty much as expected. Then as the debate was winding down, an interesting question was asked. In essence, the question was this: “Why bother debating over evolution vs. creation. That was a long time ago. What’s the point?” This is my answer to that question.
Rodney had been distracted for weeks when one of his friends cornered him and demanded an explanation for his behavior. When he admitted that he had been pondering the meaning of life, his friend suggested he visit the local wise man.
After climbing for hours, he finally reached the cave where the old hermit lived. Before approaching the cave, he rested for a bit to tend to his sore muscles, scrapes and bruises. Finally, gathering his courage he approached the cave and asked the old man, “Why am I here?”
“You are here,” the old man replied, “to get me a cold beer. Now get moving. I’m thirsty!”
The debate over the theory of evolution vs. creation is ultimately a debate over the meaning of life. Our view of the origin of humanity essentially determines our view of the world we encounter in our daily lives.
At some point in their lives, most people ponder the same question as Rodney. Getting a beer for a senile old coot is a pretty poor excuse for a meaningful life. Yet the answer evolution gives is even worse: “There is no meaning. You are merely an accident.” On the other hand, the answer creation gives is that every person was created in the image of God (Genesis 1:26-27) for His glory (Isaiah 43:7) for a reason; there are no accidents.
To see the impact of the debate over evolution vs. creation, I’m going to look at how these worldviews affect a person’s thinking in four specific areas: human rights, marriage, the rule of law and the reliability of the Bible.
Human Rights
One of the core theories of evolution is that of natural selection. Natural selection says that the weak perish while the strong survive and thrive, passing on their genes to the next generation. Those who survive overcome competition from weaker organisms around them, including those of their own species. The only rule is survival over others and producing as many offspring as possible.
By this rule, there is nothing wrong with the stronger taking resources from the weaker, even their lives. Whether taking resources is cheating someone out of their money — including a fair wage — enslavement, or even killing them (yes, I’m talking about murder), it’s all fair game under the survival of the fittest. Those who are most successful at eliminating competition without creating new competition and are able to gather strong allies are the most likely to survive to produce children. The exact methods of achieving success doesn’t matter to evolution, though I suspect quick and permanent removal of competition (i.e. fatal) would tend to trump more uncertain methods such as negotiation.
The theory of natural selection also requires the removal of the weak and infirm in order to move evolution along and remove “unnecessary” burdens on the healthy. Thus the elderly, the handicapped, and those with other “undesirable” physical traits would need to be removed from the gene pool in order to allow humanity to advance. In the effort to create a “super race” Nazi Germany instituted sterilization in 1934 and “euthenasia” in 1939. (See here and here.) And Germany was not the only country to institute such programs. Other countries, including the United States, have instituted forced sterilization and sometimes euthanasia programs in an attempt to “improve the human race” by preventing those with “defects” from reproducing. (Also see the first paragraph of this article by Margart Sanger, the founder of the American Birth Control League which eventually merged with similar organizations to became Planned Parenthood.)
By contrast, the Bible teaches that humans are created in the very image of God (Genesis 1:26-27), that God knows and celebrates every human life (Psalm 139:13-16), and that we are to always act in each others’ best interests as much as in our own (Matthew 22:39) even our enemies (Matthew 5:43-44), and take care of the weakest members of society (James 1:27).
The most famous passage in America’s founding documents is the beginning of the second paragraph in the Declaration of Independence:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
Under the theory of evolution, this sentence is meaningless because there is no creator, there is no equality, there is no such thing as unalienable Rights because there is no higher authority which establishes those rights; there is only stronger and weaker.
Marriage
A successful species by evolutionary standards is one which produces many successful offspring. Therefore, what matters is reproduction, not love; impregnation, not marriage. As long as many children are produced, it doesn’t matter what else occurs.
Such a standard not only allows for multiple partners, it encourages them, especially for men. By Darwinian standards, the man who fathers hundreds of children is significantly more successful than a man who fathers only 1 or 2. It should also be obvious that marriage is not necessary in order to father children. Rather, it is actually an impediment to evolutionary success.
In fact, this logical extension of evolution’s theory can, and has, been used to justify rape as a means of reproduction. (See “A Natural History of Rape: Biological Bases of Sexual Coercion” by Randy Thornhill, Craig T. Palmer. I will not link to this book from my site. It can be found on Amazon.) Of course, because evolution is based only on natural laws and has no moral laws, there is no built in impediments to non-heterosexual behavior, such as homosexuality, bestiality, etc.
By contrast, the Bible says that humans were designed to live in a lifelong exclusive marriage relationship consisting of one man and one woman (Matthew 19:4-6) where each meets various needs of the other.
The Rule of Law
As I’ve mentioned before, the theory of evolution is based upon the idea that only the strong survive. Another way of putting this is the “rule of claw,” where power is the only fact that matters. Or as Mao Tse-Tung put it, “Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun.”
Under evolution, the only laws which exist are natural laws and consequences. While it would not be possible for a man to deny or break the law of gravity, there are no inherent moral restrictions. For example, lying would be okay as long as you could get away with it. Stealing would be okay as long as you didn’t get caught. Heck, even murder would be okay as long as the consequences — such as someone else seeking revenge — can be avoided.
In fact, under evolutionary theory, all laws are merely human inventions. They can be created, changed and abolished or ignored at a whim by those with the right kind of power. So instead of laws being based on eternal principles, they become a means for one group to impose its will on another.
One hard-core atheist I debated accused Christians of attempting to impose their morality on others. What made it so hard for me to swallow was that his statement was in response to links to studies showing why the behavior under discussion was a really bad move. It wasn’t until I thought through this principle that I finally understood why he sees it that way. The logic works like this:
- Evolution means that there is no God. (Or at least that there isn’t a “god” powerful enough to matter.)
- Therefore, all religions/gods are made up by men.
- Therefore, all moral rules taught by those religions are also made up by men.
- Therefore, attempting to impose those rules for any reason is an attempt by one group to impose their will on another. In this case, the method of imposition just happens to be religion.
By contrast, if creation is actually true, then there truly is a God who has the authority (the creation belongs to the creator, lock, stock and barrel) and the power to impose and enforce moral laws. There is a standard of moral laws which supersedes all human authority. It is absolute and inviolable with no escape from consequences for even the smallest infraction. Attempting to live outside those laws becomes like playing russian roulette; you may escape the consequences for a little while, but not forever.
In fact, the concept of forever comes into play here. Under evolution, this life is all there is. Once you die, that’s it. There is no reward, no punishment. “He who dies with the most toys wins” and “Eat drink and be merry, for tomorrow we die” become valid lifestyle choices. Seeking pleasure and avoiding pain become all there is to life.
But under creation, this life is no longer all there is. It is merely a training and testing ground. This life is merely a temporary flash in the pan where any rewards received or pain endured are mere sparks which are gone in an instant. (Romans 8:18) Even if justice is not done in this lifetime, it is perfectly carried out in the next.
Reliability of the Bible
In the book of Genesis, the Bible clearly states that God created all life in 6 literal days. When He was finished, He had created a perfect earth with two perfect humans. Those humans made a choice which resulted in death and destruction entering the world.
Thousands of years later, according to the Bible, a man who was “God In The Flesh” walked the earth using the name Jesus. He lived a perfect, sinless life and was crucified for His trouble. Three days later, He returned to life on His own.
Both incidents are equally difficult to believe. And both depend on each other. Without the creation, there was no perfection and no fall to be rescued from, thus no reason for Jesus to die in the first place. Without the ability to create life in the first place, there is no power to return to life after death.
The theory of evolution strikes at the very reliability of the Bilical narrative. If the incident of creation didn’t actually happen, then the Bible either lied about what happened, or it is mistaken. Either way, the Bible cannot be trusted to tell the truth about anything — including Jesus’ resurrection from the dead. And if Jesus did not bodily rise from the dead as an objective fact, then Christianity is a fraud.
But if it is preached that Christ has been raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? If there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith. More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead. But he did not raise him if in fact the dead are not raised. For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised either. And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost. If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are to be pitied more than all men.
(1Cor. 15:12-19, NIV)
By contrast, if the Biblical account of creation is true then it becomes obvious that God can do anything and the entire Biblical account is trustworthy.
Objective Truth
Ultimately, the debate over evolution and creation is the debate over objective truth. There can be only One. There is only one reality which we all share. Either we accurately recognize what that reality is and act accordingly, or that reality will grind us to dust without even slowing down if we try to oppose it. Recognizing objective truth is accurately recognizing reality. That is what science is supposed to be — the search for objective truth. Yet the “science” of evolution has become anything but the search for truth.
Even as evolution science has made claims of being “objective” it has been defined as only accepting naturalistic answers. Any possible conclusion of design or creation in the debate over origins is automatically deemed as “unscientific,” even if that is where the evidence leads.
It’s as if a math teacher was giving problem sets to her students. As she hands out the papers, she tells the students that ‘4’ is never a correct answer. In fact, if she sees the answer ‘4’ anywhere on the paper, that paper will be given an ‘F’ grade. Among the problems, the students find these: ‘2 + 2 =’ and ‘5 - 1 =’. What will the students write as their answers? It won’t be ‘4’ even if that is the correct answer. (Unless, of course, a student is as stubborn about truth as I am.)
If you think I’m overstating the case, just consider this section from Nancy Peacey’s excellent book, “Total Truth”:
Harvard biologist Richard Lewontin gave the game away in a highly revealing article in the New York Review of Books a few years ago. Lewontin starts out by admitting the darker side of science (it makes extravagant claims, causes environmental problems, and so on). And yet, he quickly adds, we must still prefer science to any form of supernaturalism. Why? Because, “we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.”
…
“It’s not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation” of the world, Lewontin explains. “On the contrary,” he says, “we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations.” Translation: We first accepted materialism as a philosophy, and then refashioned science into a machine for cranking out strictly materialistic theories.
Finally, he warns that this materialism must be “absolute, for we cannot allow a divine foot in the door.” That final phrase points to what’s really at stake in the evolution controversy. Why does Lewontin urge us to define science as applied materialism? Because otherwise we might let a “divine foot in the door.” And we all know what happens then: When a salesman gets his foot in the door, pretty soon his brooms and brushes are all over your living room. If a “divine foot” ever got in the door of science, that would provide the groundwork for the entire Christian worldview, with its theology and biblical morality. That’s what sends a shiver of fear up the spine of many secularists.
Let’s face it, the Bible claims to be objective truth. It says that God “created the heavens and the earth.” (Genesis 1:1) It says that God’s handiwork is displayed all around us. (Psalm 19:1-2) It says that Jesus actually came to earth “in the flesh.” (1 John 4:2) In other words, it claims to be an accurate historical record of actual events. Therefore, it’s entirely reasonable for honest science (without the naturalistic biases) to agree with the Bible.
That is why the debate over evolution and creationism matters. It is a debate over objective truth. It is a debate over whether the Bible is factually accurate; and that is a debate Christians must be willing to engage in. If we do not, we automatically concede “objective truth” status to those who refuse to accept even the possibility of God’s existence. And in so doing, we abandon many who are searching for the honest objective truth to eternity in hell.
Exercise: I discussed four areas where the starting assumptions about evolution and creation create diametrically opposed approaches to the issues. Can you think of any other areas where a person’s preference for evolution or creation produces vast differences and what those differences are? Some possibilities include: self-esteem, the role of government, charity, health care, biotechnology, the environment, etc.
) So without further ado, on to the posts:
