Summer Issue 2008
1 Jul 2008
In its recent editorial “The Cons of Creationism,” the New York Times took up a subject about which it has considerable expertise. No, I’m not talking about creationism; I’m talking about cons. No one has more expertise and experience in conning the public than the “Old Gray Lady.” Her proficiency in propagandizing the public is proven by the fact that she is still circulated as a serious newspaper rather than sold as a tabloid on the checkout line of your local grocery store.
According to the Times’ editorial, the Genesis account of creation must be excluded from the outset of all true scientific investigation. Instead of following the evidence wherever it leads, science must initially dismiss the possibility of intelligent design behind an intricately designed universe and commence all scientific investigations upon the premise of naturalistic and atheistic assumptions. Yes, I did say atheistic assumptions. If believers in evolution are going to insist that intelligent design be equated with belief in God, then why shouldn’t believers in God insist that natural selection be equated with disbelief in God?
The Times justifies its gutting of the scientific method of everything besides natural explanations by insisting that other conclusions require faith. What the Times fails to acknowledge, however, is that naturalism or atheism also require faith. Atheism, which has been recognized as a religious faith by the United States Supreme Court, is the belief that God is nonexistent. Whereas an atheist believes that there is no God, a Christian believes that there is. Both are incapable of scientifically proving their faith to the other and neither can boast that modern-science has proved or disproved the existence of God. Why, then, is the dismissal of God seen as the exclusive basis of true scientific research and the possibility of God dismissed as a faulty premise from the onset?
If no natural explanation suffices and one is inevitably led to conclude that the answer to the question of life’s origin is found outside the natural realm, why isn’t this viewed as scientific evidence pointing to the existence of God? Why is modern evolutionary science’s inability to answer the question of the origin of life passed over by present-day scientists and viewed as impermissible evidence in any case mounted against evolutionary theory? The answer to these questions leads to some inescapable conclusions. First, many scientists today are operating from preconceived and atheistic prejudices. Second, behind modern-day evolutionary theory is a hidden agenda designed to remove belief in God from the realm of objective truth to the realm of subjective opinion.
By excluding the possibility of a Creator behind creation, modern-science attempts to reduce God to a fanciful notion conjured up in the imaginative minds of religious individuals. The existence of God is alleged to be unsupportable by scientific evidence and therefore without any basis in fact. Contrary to this disingenuous and diabolical deduction, the Bible teaches that the irrefutable proof of the Creator is all around us in the form of creation (Romans 1:18-25). Anyone refusing to acknowledge the truth of God’s existence in the face of such incontrovertible scientific evidence is condemned by the Scripture as an inexcusable imbecile.
Think about it; no sane nor reasonable person could possibly believe what modern-science is proliferating: (1) that everything came from nothing (2) that life came from something that was not alive (3) that reason came from something incapable of reasoning (4) that an intricately designed universe has no intelligent Designer (5) that everything in the world today—including you, me and a head of cabbage—came from a single cell that floated up on a slimy beach eons ago (6) that man evolved from the monkey, despite the fact that we still have monkeys (7) that fish evolved lungs without drowning or going extinct flopping around on the dry ground (8) that science has proven a cockamamie theory that contradicts its own laws of Cause and Effect and Thermodynamics, and (9) that evolution is a proven fact in spite of the fact that its missing link is still missing.
I know that we are repeatedly told in this day and time that behind evolutionary theory is sound science, but the Bible teaches something totally different. According to the Apostle Paul, the reason men refuse to acknowledge the truth of God is sin, not science (Romans 1:18). Men do not “suppress the truth” of God because of their scholarship and brilliance, but because of their “wickedness.” It is not brilliant minds that turn men into evolutionists, but dark hearts (Romans 1:21).
Dark-hearted men are at such enmity with God that they will resort to anything, no matter how foul or foolish, to keep from accepting and acknowledging the truth of God. The Scripture teaches that all who confess that Jesus Christ is God are enabled to do so by the Holy Spirit and that all who refuse to confess Christ are inspired by “the spirit of antichrist” (1 Corinthians 12:3; 1 John 4:1-3). By this, the Scripture provides us with an acid-test that clearly earmarks the saints from the “ain’ts.” Anyone refusing to acknowledge God’s creation of the world or incarnate visit to it in the person of Jesus Christ is not an up-and-coming academic, but an out-and-out antichrist.
In his recent film documentary, “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed,” Ben Stein interviews the world renowned scientist and atheist Richard Dawkins. During the interview, Dawkins, the author of the book The God Delusion, claims to be 99 percent certain that there is no God. When pressed by Stein on the 1 percent possibility he leaves open for God’s existence, an irritated Dawkins recoils by insisting that even if Intelligent Design is ever proven it will not prove the existence of God, but of a highly evolved extraterrestrial who came to earth and seeded life on our planet.
Dawkins’ willingness to believe in the possibility of little green men from Mars, coupled with his unwillingness to believe in the God-man from heaven, is proof positive of all that Paul wrote in the first chapter of Romans. It’s not the genius of Dawkins’ brilliant mind that causes him to reject Jesus Christ; instead, it’s the darkness of a heart at enmity with God. This alone explains why this so-called brilliant scientist vows that no matter what scientific evidence ever says he’ll never say that Jesus is Lord. Unfortunately for Dawkins, he’ll be as unable to carry out this vow as he is to prove that creation has no Creator (Philippians 2:9-11).
Don Walton
|
