Thursday, March 29, 2018

ATHEISM & CREATION

Atheism & Creation (From my wee eBook Why I Am Not An Atheist)

Having seen that Atheism is the belief that God does not exist and that Atheism forms a life and world view from this presupposition, and that it is this Atheist life and worldview that we are calling the Atheist religion, and as such this Atheistic religion is deficient in that it has no moral grounding, and that on account of the fall of mankind the whole human race is Atheistic, and as such has a faulty view of salvation, we are now ready to consider what is wrong with the world of nature.

Charles Darwin popularised the interchangeable terms “survival of the fittest” and “natural selection.” These terms describe how biological life adapts or evolves to cope with and exist in various and sometimes hostile environments. A simple example of this might be that a fit and healthy wildebeest has a better opportunity to survive against predatory lions than a wounded or deformed wildebeest. There is no argument forthcoming from the Christian against the idea of “the survival of the fittest” or “natural selection.” However, following Darwin’s lead, the Atheist has taken this idea and has extrapolated from it a fantastic theory!

Charles Darwin speculated that through the process he called “natural selection” that a bear, for example, could become a very different creature such as a whale. The Live Science website gives a basic summary of what is commonly meant by the term “Darwin’s Theory of Evolution.” The following words are included in the Live Science website’s description,

Natural selection can change a species in small ways, causing a population to change color or size over the course of several generations. This is called “microevolution.” But natural selection is also capable of much more. Given enough time and enough accumulated changes, natural selection can create entirely new species. It can turn dinosaurs into birds, apes into humans and amphibious mammals into whales.[14]

Again Christians have no trouble with the “microevolution” idea of the first half of the above quote. This is observable, scientifically observable. However, it is that which is unobservable, scientifically unobservable that the Christian objects to. Contrary to much popular belief it is simply pure and unsubstantiated speculation that “Given enough time and enough accumulated changes, natural selection can create entirely new species. It can turn dinosaurs into birds, apes into humans and amphibious mammals into whales.” With regards to turning “dinosaurs into birds, apes into humans and amphibious mammals into whales” natural selection is not scientifically demonstrable! It is simply a leap from microevolution to macroevolution, a leap of faith!

It is at this point that an insecure Atheist might start jumping up and down exclaiming that the Theory of Evolution is settled science. The Christian would grant that it is a popular theory among many scientists but not that it is “settled science. One only has to consider the “Punctuated Equilibrium”[15] of the Evolutionist Stephen Jay Gould versus the idea of “enough time and enough accumulated changes” as espoused by the Evolutionary Live Science people. Indeed for the reasoning mind there ought to be something unsettling about the idea of “settled science”, especially when it involves the idea of origins of the type found in Darwin’s “Origin of Species”!

The Bible has a lot to say about origins (including the origin of species), especially in its opening chapter. In Genesis 1:1 we read the following majestic words, “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” I once quoted this verse to an Atheist and then asked if I had understood correctly his opposing view which I said was, “In the beginning there was nothing. And this nothing exploded in the Big Bang!” This summarises the leap of faith the Evolutionist makes from microevolution to macroevolution.

Because something (such as biological life) can adapt (evolve) and become stronger and more survivable does not mean that nothing can adapt (evolve) and become something! This is not science. This is philosophy! (including at the quantum level). Nay, it is religion! Says Eugene Clingman,

Evolution is held by faith; in other words, evolution is religiously held; evolution is a religion. Humanism, the belief that there is nothing higher than man, is held by faith; humanism is a religion.[1]

What is wrong with God designing and then creating land, sea, and air creatures which adapted to their particular local environments? Nothing – if you believe in God the Creator as revealed in the Bible. But everything – if you do not believe in the Triune God! Thus, the current debates between Evolutionists and Creationists. Notice that I did not say debates between Science and Evolutionists or Science and Creationists. Rather the debates are between two types of science, Evolutionary Science versus Creation Science.

Both Evolutionary Scientists and Creation Scientists are looking at the same things, i.e., creation and the things contained therein. Therefore, the debates are not about science, per se, but rather which view best interprets scientific data, i.e., Evolutionism or Creationism? Did the Triune God in the beginning form various kinds of (prototypical) animals, birds and sea creatures which adapted to their local habitats or did something come from nothing, and then did the organic come from the inorganic, the sentient and the animate from the inanimate as per Atheistic Darwinian Evolution?

Darwin wondered about the cruelty he observed (scientifically) in creation and wondered how a good and benevolent god could have created such an environment. A cat toying with a mouse? Cruelty! A wasp laying its eggs in a live caterpillar which eggs hatch and the larvae eat the caterpillar from the inside out? Cruelty! Blindness in children caused by bacteria? Cruelty! And so forth.

The Bible tells us, therefore the Christian believes, that the world we live in now is not the same world God created in the beginning. Sin, misery and death entered God’s “good” creation when Adam, the first human being, disobeyed God. Therefore, if Charles Darwin had realised that he was studying a fallen or corrupted creation (which has become a cruel and harsh environment on account of man’s rebellion against the Creator) he may not have drawn such (erroneous) conclusions and rejected his Maker. All he (and everyone else for that matter) had to do was take the opening chapters of Genesis at face value. God created. Man rebelled. All creation suffered. Then he would have seen what was wrong with creation. And if he had read on he would then also have seen what God has done to fix it!

Summary: Atheism has a faulty view of creation.

[1] Rebuilding Civilization on the Bible: Proclaiming the Truth on 24 Controversial Issues, Nordskog Publishing, Ventura, California, 2014, p. 179.

No comments:

Post a Comment