The most insidious and destructive ideology ever imposed on the mind of modern man is the idea that people are just animals and the descendants of other, more primitive creatures. It is known as the theory of organic evolution. This concept has been reflected in recent years in books such as Man, Animal (1986) by Phil Donahue, and in an early issue, The Naked Ape (1967), as described by the zoologist Desmond Morris.
Unfortunately, many thousands of people across the earth have swallowed this vile dogma to a greater or lesser extent (sometimes even with a religious flavor). But why? Have people intellectually analyzed this issue and thus, based on convincing evidence and arguments, accepted this point of view? Not at all, rather for various emotional reasons, this concept was so readily accepted.
In 1974, Marshall and Sandra Hall published a book titled Truth: God or Evolution? In the introduction section of this excellent book, the authors listed several reasons why evolutionary theory is preferred by so many people. Giving them credit for their germline thoughts, I would like to expand the discussion.
Brainwashing
After the publication of Charles Darwin's Origin of Species (1859), a massive campaign was launched to flood the “intellectual market” with evolutionary propaganda. Although such ideas in no way originated with Darwin, he popularized evolution more than anyone else. His book was sold out (1,025 copies) on the first day of its release.
Another major milestone was the famous Scopes trial held in July 1925 in Dayton, Tennessee. John Thomas Scopes, twenty-four, a high school science teacher, agreed to violate Tennessee's Butler Act, which prohibited the teaching of any theory that believed humans descended from a lower life form. The entire case was fabricated, but it brought together William Jennings Bryan (three-time Democratic presidential candidate), who volunteered to represent the state, and famed criminal lawyer Clarence Darrow, who defended Scopes. The trial, the first ever to be broadcast on the radio, brought the issue of Creation versus Evolution to public attention. As a result of this meeting, the concept of creationism was exposed in a negative light,and evolutionary dogma has gained considerable respectability, albeit undeserved.
Since then, however, the influence of the theory of evolution has accelerated through the media and the public school system. Today there is an established campaign for the suggestion of evolution, and millions of people have absorbed it into their minds.
Promotional video:
Intimidation
Hand in hand with the brainwashing factor is intimidation. Presumably, evolutionary teaching has the approval of "science." In 1966, H. D. Müller, a renowned geneticist, circulated a statement signed by 177 biologists. He argued that evolution is a "scientific law" that is as firmly established as the roundness of the earth.
Because most people want to be considered educated, and because they were led to the belief that "all educated people believe in evolution," they went over to the Darwinian camp. Most of these individuals could not make a single argument for evolution; they just believe that it is a fact, because "that's what scientists say."
Informed people should know this: evolution is not a scientific law.
Darwin's "theory" is actually a hypothesis that falls outside the scope of scientific method (observation, experimentation, and testing).
Scientific controversy
There are many laws, for example, the laws of thermodynamics, genetics, etc., which contradict evolutionary statements.
Evolution is pseudoscience
Many scientists disagree that evolutionary dogma is true science. The evolutionist Robert Justow, for example, has recognized that the belief in the accidental origin of life is an “act of faith,” as he says, like belief in the power of a Supreme Being (Until The Sun Die, New York: Warner Books, 1977, p. 52).
Theodore N. Tahmisian physiologist, nuclear physicist at the Atomic Energy Commission, said:
Therefore, it is hardly necessary to yield to the pressures of evolutionary “pounding of the eyebrows”. We must not be intimidated; we must be more aggressive in demanding that those who claim their confidence in evolution make a logical case for their stories.
Religious confusion
Some are pushed towards an evolutionary ideology because they are repelled by the confusing (and sometimes violent) state of the religious world. Religious fanatics sacrificed their own children in the name of the "gods" (see Jer. 19: 5). In the Far East, the cobra is worshiped as a deity. "Christians" (so-called) fought with adherents of Islam. Catholics claim that the bread and wine of the "Eucharist" magically turn into the body and blood of Jesus, while Protestants insist that this does not happen. Some argue that baptism only by immersion in water, while others argue that “sprinkling” or “aspersion.” A rather unique view suggests that all three methods constitute the “one baptism” of Ephesians 4: 5 (cf. Wycliffe Bible Dictionary, Peabody: MA: Hendrickson,1998, p. 201).
This disunity has caused many to become disillusioned with religion in general, which includes rebellion against divine revelation. This is, of course, exactly what Jesus pointed out. He exhorted those who professed faithfulness to Him to be united in order to “believe in the world” (John 17: 20-21); The Lord meant that disunity would lead to the opposite effect, that is, unbelief.
But people need to understand that deviation from the original does not deny the authenticity of the original. The segmented status of "religious diversity" does not confirm evolution. The facts are that evolutionists are as divided as religious.
For example, Sir Francis Crick, co-discoverer of DNA, claimed that biological life evolved here on Earth. On the other hand, Sir Fred Hoyle argued that spontaneous generation of living organisms took place in outer space! Some Darwinists suggest that the evolutionary process was entirely gradual, over eons of time. Presumably this explains the lack of transitional forms in the fossil record. Others (like Richard Goldschmidt and more recently Stephen Gould of Harvard) suggest that evolution was fast, almost jerky.
There is massive disagreement among evolutionists. Therefore, those who fled from religion because of its disunity did not find a safe haven in Darwinism.
A world of disorder
It seems to many that our world environment, which is so characterized by cruelty and suffering, is more in line with Darwin's principle of "the fittest survives" than the idea that the Earth is looked after by a benevolent God. There could be some leverage in this argument, if there was no other rational explanation for the ills of this globe.
But the fact is that it can be argued that the tragedies of life are the result of man's rebellion against his Creator; and negative consequences were admitted as a pedagogical process for the benefit of the human family. In our recently published book, The Bible and Mental Health, we have an entire chapter describing some of the values of human grief.
But here's another question to consider. While the believer has some basis for explaining the presence of evil in a way that matches the existence of a powerful and benevolent God, the evolutionist has no rational explanation for why there is a human sensitivity in man that judges some things to be evil and others good. How can a collection of simple matter, which, according to atheism, is the sum of man, come to a rational, moral judgment regarding this phenomenon called evil? The problem of evil is more challenging for the evolutionist than for the creationist.
Physical evidence
Many people are impressed with evolutionary history because it is backed up by what they believe is material evidence, while religion seems to be part of a dreamy, surreal environment. After all, scientists have fossils to prove their history, right?
This argument is extremely misleading for the following reasons
All fossils ever collected represent less than 1% of the potential evidence, says David Raup of the Chicago Field Museum (Museum Bulletin, Jan. 1979, p. 50).
Not a single fossil has been found that clearly demonstrates the relationship between the main types of organisms.
all fossil evidence is subject to interpretation; and even evolutionists dispute the data.
For example, when Donald Johansson and his colleagues discovered several bone fragments that they christened "Lucy" in 1974, they claimed the little creature walked on two legs and was on its way to becoming human. However, many evolutionists seriously dispute this. We discussed this issue at some length in the October 1986 print issue of The Christian Courier.
But Biblical believers are not devoid of material evidence to defend their cause. Numerous archaeological discoveries have been made that support the historicity of Scripture (see our book, Studying the Bible in the Light of Archeology. "Biblical Studies in the Light of Archeology")
In such a case, if a general conclusion can be made about the factual correctness of the Bible, it can be reasonably concluded that its statements about the origin of humanity are also true.
Escape from responsibility
Another reason why many are so willing to accept evolution as an explanation for the emergence of humanity is that it allows them to "get rid" of God and, therefore, be free from moral and religious obligations. Thus, they can become their own "gods" and write their own rules. Richard Dawkins says that “Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually content atheist” (The Blind Watchmaker, New York: WW Norton, 1986, p. 6.)
This point of view was vividly illustrated several years ago when Clarence Darrow spoke to inmates at Cook County Jail in Chicago. Listen to him.
This shocking statement reveals the motive of some evolutionists.
Output
People don't believe in evolution because they've been brought there with hard evidence. They are driven into the Darwinian community by superficial, emotional and personal factors. They only deceive themselves when they think otherwise.
By Wayne Jackson