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 doesnít exist or the idea of an
intelligent Creator isnít compatible with scientific inquiry (Never mind
some of historyís 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 doesnít 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 itís a movement,
itís 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 "Natureís 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 wasnít
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 didnít rely on the theory of
Darwinian evolution for their protection
(even though evolutionary theory had been around since ancient Greek
philosophy and Darwinís 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 theoryís 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 Ė 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) doesnít lead people to the scientific conclusion that
Darwinian evolution is true. For many scientists, the evidence tends to
show that the theory is false. Thatís 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
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).
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 Ė Part 2
My last column generated such a firestorm of email
criticism from those who oppose creation science
and intelligent design that Iíve
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 laymanís 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 doesnít exist or he isnít compatible with scientific inquiry.
Hereís how one writer put it: "Evolution, being a BIOLOGICAL theory,
doesnít address the creation of the worlds. Also, it doesnít address the
creation of life! Evolution only begins to take place after the creation
of life, in whatever way that occurred."
(Itís sort of interesting that those so strongly
opposed to creation science canít 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
So Darwin and his followers were looking merely at
the development of organisms. Notice that he didnít 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 donít
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 theyíre 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
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
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 Ďintelligent
designí does not."
Letís 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.
Ė of which no assumptions are made).
In theory, the theory of
evolution begins with no assumptions of Godís 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, thatís 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 Ė 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 Ė 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) canít be explained by the consequences
of sin because protozoans and animals canít be held to moral standards.
And likewise, the real pain and suffering in the world canít be
attributed honestly to Adamís 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 Ė that
involves much more faith than God requires. Instead, exercise intelligent
faith Ė 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.
Ė William Cowper (1731-1800)
©2005 Monte Kuligowski