Darwinian Faith vs.Intelligent Faith
By Monte Kuligowski
The debate over the theory of Darwinian evolution vs. the revived theory of intelligent design is predictably causing an emotional big bang in scientific and academic circles. Darwinism begins with the premise that God doesn’t exist or the idea of an intelligent Creator isn’t compatible with scientific inquiry (Never mind some of history’s greatest scientists believed in God). The Darwinist begins with the assumption that God had nothing to do with the creation of the worlds and of life itself. Everything must be explained by natural process because the supernatural doesn’t exist. Evolutionary theory rests upon faith in a blind chance phenomenon which is capable of producing and sustaining life. Proponents of the theory of intelligent design point to observable laws, like entropy, and to the complexities of life and conclude that creation and life were designed by a higher power.
The AP recently quoted Barbara Forest, a university philosophy professor and leading critic of intelligent design, as saying, "It is at its bottom a Christian religious movement." Every Christian, of course, believes, "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." (Gen. 1: 1). So does every religious Jew. And countless citizens who are neither Christians nor Jews also believe that God is the author of life. Intelligent design is more than a Christian religious movement; it is at the very constitution of what makes us a nation. If it’s a movement, it’s certainly not a new one.
Consider the words of our Declaration of Independence. The parchment might be old and frail, but it still contains the bedrock faith of our great nation. When breaking away from Great Britain, the old guys in knickers and wigs understood that the laws of nature were given by "Nature’s God." They felt justified in declaring independence because they based their quest upon something objective and superseding, not upon an impersonal cold, material world. Nature wasn’t their God; rather, nature was subject to God. "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 . . . ." The framers of our country pledged their lives "with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence . . . ." The creators of our country relied on the Creator of the universe.
Our founders certainly didn’t rely on the theory of Darwinian evolution for their protection (even though evolutionary theory had been around since ancient Greek philosophy and Darwin’s grandfather also promoted the theory). The theory can protect no one.
The only "natural laws" enacted in its congress of chaos are laws of a purposeless universe and life. Its maxim, "survival of the fittest," has lead to unmitigated cruelty by calloused individuals believing they will escape judgment. The unborn, the weak, the infirm and the elderly are vulnerable impediments in the hands of those who have run to the theory’s natural consequence: the subjective value of human life.
The theory of evolution has wreaked more havoc upon Western civilization than any other dogma of man. It replaced moral absolutes with moral relativism; purpose with emptiness; accountability with a false freedom; self control with self seeking; hope with despair; true freedom with an oligarchy; spiritualism with materialism; biblical authority with human authority (humanism); and the dignity of men with the abasement of animals. That such a contrary theory has come to reign as king in the academic world should cause us to pause; because the ramifications are far-reaching – and disastrous.
Many years ago, Abraham Lincoln aptly noted that the philosophy in the schoolhouse in one generation will become the philosophy of the culture in the next. The engine of our society was never meant to run on an empty philosophy disguised as science. John Adams said that, "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." Darwinism attempts to tear down religion and to the degree that it has, it has torn down the pillars of our culture.
No matter how you slice it, theories of origin require faith, not scientific proof. No one was there to see non-life evolve into life by a blind material process or to see God create the worlds and all living things by the power of his word. And insufficient evidence exists to produce an objective finding through the scientific method. The problem for Darwinism is that the limited observable evidence (and common sense) doesn’t lead people to the scientific conclusion that Darwinian evolution is true. For many scientists, the evidence tends to show that the theory is false. That’s why some have abandoned the corroding shipwreck of evolutionary "science," realizing that much more faith is required for this theory than for the theory of intelligent design.
So long as theories over the important question of origin require faith, scientists would do well to accept and promote a theory that is actually compatible and able to support our free society by providing hope, purpose and accountability for the citizenry (including the school children who are forced to learn it).
Darwinian evolution excludes the supernatural realm and then looks to unintelligible, lifeless matter for understanding. Intelligent design acknowledges the handiwork of an intelligent Creator. If the Creator is able to create and sustain all things, it stands to reason that he is able to protect and bless our land. What also follows is the fact which makes evolutionists cringe: men are accountable to God.
Darwinian Faith vs. Intelligent Faith – Part 2
My last column generated such a firestorm of email criticism from those who oppose creation science and intelligent design that I’ve decided to present the following to see if my understanding has evolved.
First, my article, "Darwinian Faith vs. Intelligent Faith," was not written as a scientific treatise; but as a layman’s prose, pointing to the horrific social consequences of evolutionary theory.
Nevertheless, my beloved opponents were quick to point to my heresy of stating that Darwinism begins with the premise that either God doesn’t exist or he isn’t compatible with scientific inquiry. Here’s how one writer put it: "Evolution, being a BIOLOGICAL theory, doesn’t address the creation of the worlds. Also, it doesn’t address the creation of life! Evolution only begins to take place after the creation of life, in whatever way that occurred."
(It’s sort of interesting that those so strongly opposed to creation science can’t help but use the word "creation" when referring to the appearance of the worlds and of life.)
The editor of the New Humanist magazine guards his words a little better: "Darwinism, if such a thing exists . . . merely point[s] to all the available evidence supporting the theories of evolution and natural selection. What happened before the existence of the first organism is not something Darwin or his followers spent much time on . . . they were looking merely at the development of organisms, not their initial creation."
So Darwin and his followers were looking merely at the development of organisms. Notice that he didn’t say they were looking at one genus of species evolving into another. Evolutionists have never seen this happen and they remain unable to prove their claim. They don’t really know whether life first appeared instantly and completely (as microscopic life, seed bearing vegetation, male and female fish, birds, cows, bugs, man, etc.); rather than as a single primordial organism. No one saw the elusive first lone organism; but some believe the theory is true. Likewise, no one saw God create the earth and impart life; but many believe that he did. No one saw natural selection create an ear to hear; neither did anyone see God breathe life into Adam after he formed him from the dust of the earth. Hence, beyond what evolutionists are looking at, is what they’re unable to see.
Another authority on evolution says that, "science says nothing about God. It does not include the concept of god in any assumptions. Also, the creation of planets and the origin of life has [sic] nothing to do with the theory of evolution."
Guess what? Science says nothing about natural selection. Natural selection is nothing more than a mythological deity, possessing unsearchable creative abilities and a mysterious intellect. It took a while, but it turned a little slime blob into a breathing evolutionist.
The enlightened evolutionist ignores his own faith, focusing instead on the faith of others: "Intelligent Design is a religious doctrine because it makes the unsubstantiated, unverifiable claim that God guided the development or creation of life. Evolutionary theory . . . is an evidence-based theory which makes no claims . . . about god. This is why evolution belongs in a classroom, and ‘intelligent design’ does not."
Let’s read that quote again, except this time swapping "intelligent design" and "evolution;" and "God" and "natural selection": "Evolution is a religious doctrine because it makes the unsubstantiated, unverifiable claim that natural selection guided the development . . . of life. Intelligent design is an evidence-based theory which makes no claims about natural selection. This is why intelligent design belongs in a classroom, and evolution does not."
I think I now understand evolutionary theory a little better. It makes no assumptions about God (which makes it true science); it only begins after the non-biological evolution or creation of the planets, at the point of earthly life, and then looks to the development (observable changes within a species) of present organisms which leads an educated (or indoctrinated) person to the conclusion that all food producing trees and plants, animals, amphibians, reptiles, insects and man (and every other living thing) have evolved into their present state from a first organism (of which no assumptions are made) by the marvel of natural selection (of which no assumptions are made) over millions and millions of years with consecutive and consistent conditions for life (enough water, light, oxygen, food, temperature, etc. – of which no assumptions are made).
In theory, the theory of evolution begins with no assumptions of God’s existence. In practice, how many evolutionists are completely closed-minded to the repulsive thought of the God of the Bible being the creator and sustainer of all life? The theory conveniently provides a foundation (of sand) for atheists, humanists and secularists, etc., to build upon toward the creation of an illusionary world where there is no objective right or wrong nor final accountability to God.
"Well, no, that’s not accurate," one might say, because even Darwin saw no conflict with believing in God and some people who ascribe to the theory do believe in God. After all, the theory makes no assumptions about God. On one hand, God is left out of the equation; on the other, one may believe in God and still be a macro-evolutionist. But oh, dear evolutionist, what kind of god does the theory support?
Would the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob need millions and millions of years to create his beloved treasure called man, made a little lower than the angels but crowned with glory and honor? Of course not. He is the God who spoke the galaxies into existence by the power of his word. He said, "Let there be light: and there was light." He speaks and it happens – instantly. Whether he is creating life; parting the sea; pushing down the walls of Jericho; turning water into wine; multiplying a few loaves to feed thousands; healing lepers or raising the dead – he is the all knowing, all seeing God. He is the Almighty.
Evolution is not the work of an omnipotent Creator, but an impotent fairy. Number him among the ancient Baals and Asherahs; he is a thing of human imagination, as worthless as a totem pole or bronze idol. He is as blind as the fairy tale of natural selection, groping in the dark waiting for his eyes to fully evolve. When was man created in his own image? When he existed in the form of a salmon or an ape? What was this god doing when his poor beast was evolving from monkey to Neanderthal? Did he take pleasure in his grotesque creature crawling in the mud, and then hunching around trying to walk upright? Or is the god of evolution to be pitied because of his utter inability to intervene?
At what point did man become accountable to this god? Or does he have any basis to hold men accountable? Is his only precept the law of survival of the fittest?
The imaginary past pain and suffering (during the eons of evolutionary process) can’t be explained by the consequences of sin because protozoans and animals can’t be held to moral standards. And likewise, the real pain and suffering in the world can’t be attributed honestly to Adam’s sin if the story of creation is just an allegorical fairy tale.
Hence, we see the problem for the (perhaps unsuspecting) religious evolutionist and the delight of the atheist: there are no definitive answers to our deepest questions (like, why is there suffering in the world?). When the Bible is not interpreted plainly, objective moral truth is replaced with subjective interpretation.
So I ask, is there any good reason for anyone to interpret the Bible allegorically, yielding to the doctrine of the mysteriously moving slime that needed to evolve? Of course not – that involves much more faith than God requires. Instead, exercise intelligent faith – trust your Creator and believe his word. If the pillars of creation and original sin are rejected, then the biblical truths which follow come crumbling down (in the mind of the unbeliever). At that point, God is not to be trusted and obeyed, but questioned.
Submitting to the rule of God is not something men naturally select. And that basic truth is not subject to evolution.
Blind unbelief is sure to err,
And scan his work in vain:
God is his own interpreter,
And He will make it plain.
– William Cowper (1731-1800)
©2005 Monte Kuligowski