Has Evolution Become A Religion?

Science has become the universal language and in the modernist worldview, it was said that science could answer all our problems and be the panacea to man's plight. Carl Sagan, 1981 recipient of the Humanist of the Year award, has announced that evolution has become a sort of religion.  Science, itself, is a universal language.  Evolution, itself, has become the faith of secular academia.  In China, you can criticize Darwin, but not the government; while in America you can criticize the government, but not Darwin!  Even Darwin criticized himself (one chapter in his book was entitled, "Difficulties with the Theory").  The evolutionist always has the comeback:  "You must assume, that, somehow by faith, it happened (abiogenesis) or it was there (the primordial soup)!"

The Achilles' heel of evolution is the origin of life and man still hasn't been able to produce life in a mock primordial soup.  Darwin, himself, scoffed at the idea of spontaneous generation, and yet this is what evolution logically leads to.  Darwin had no idea that he was just giving justification for communism and social Darwinism or the survival of the fittest.  His main theory, the origin of species by means of natural selection, depends on the survival of the fittest, but he cannot posit any arrival of the fittest--where did life come from?  It is scientific fact that life only comes from life, unless you believe that the impossible happened and spontaneous generation or abiogenesis occurred, contrary to the laws of nature, though Louis Pasteur disproved the possibility in 1860.

The whole Secular Humanist worldview depends on evolution because they deny God and not only that, they are anti-God and are militant atheists, not letting any divine foot in the door of academia, which they see as pushing religion.  It is obvious that the complexity of life was no fluke of nature and reveals a grand Designer, who was engaged in His creation and not a bystander or just a first cause or unmoved mover.

Evolution depends upon a series of contingent events and an astronomical chance event--like believing a Boeing 747 could be assembled by a tornado going through a junkyard (even if the cosmos was filled with them)--it just won't happen, and this is called "junkyard mentality."  According to Sir Fred Hoyle, famed British mathematician and astronomer said that the odds of life occurring by chance is the same as a blind man solving Rubiks Cube (it would take 1.35 trillion years!), or of throwing a six on a die five million times in a row!  The laws of probability are against evolution. In the book The Intelligent Universe, Hoyle postulates that life could not have arisen by chance, period. In his own words, life couldn't have arisen by chance--it is pure faith based on no evidence.  They believe that we Christians believe in the impossible, but evolution is impossible too, either way, one must take the step of faith and become a believer.

Now getting back to Darwin, himself; he said, that, if his theory were true it would be demonstrated in the fossil record--well no transitional forms have been found, but only fully formed species. Before you can have a limb, you must have a bad limb, and no missing links (and there should be millions, because there are 11 million species of life on earth).  Evolution posits that there was a primordial soup that had perfect conditions for life to form--but where did this soup come from?  A problem that Darwin couldn't have known about is that of DNA, or the metabolic motor that is necessary for life and can only be created by life--this begs the question, of where did the first DNA come from?  The only logical conclusion is that life was created since it couldn't have an infinite regress of life coming from life, ad infinitum.

The whole concept of evolution denies the scientific principle of entropy (the Second Law of Thermodynamics), which posits that things go from complex to simple or from order to disorder and chaos, not the other way around.  Things are not evolving for the better, but the worst!  We are running out of usable energy, though the total amount of energy is fixed.  Man is devolving, not evolving!  I've heard it said that in nursery school they say a princess kissing a frog to become a prince is a fairy tale; while in college it is science!

Why does academia embrace this theory dogmatically, and those who don't tow the line are ostracized and lose credibility? There is no academic freedom to explore the real evidence and alternate viewpoints and theories.  It is apparent that evidence to support evolution scientifically is hard to come by, and it is faith not supported by good science, and according to Dr. Karl Popper, it would not qualify to be a scientific theory at all by today's standards of science--yet it was first a working hypothesis, then it was championed as a theory, then finally, now it is touted as unquestioned, scientific fact.

The problem is that students in the schools actually believe science has disproved creation and that evolution has been proved! Everything eventually runs out of steam or energy, and the universe will someday fade away in heat death.  The whole theory rests on the premise that time plus chance plus space equals any possibility, or that given enough time anything can happen!  Do you believe that monkeys typing away for eternity could ever produce something intelligible?  Something that's impossible doesn't happen, no matter how much time is allotted. Evolution is unproven, regardless of what they say, and unprovable!  What it is is a "time-honored, scientific tenet of faith."  Students are brainwashed into acceptance, because creation science is not even taught in the public school system, but seen as a religion and a violation of the First Amendment.  One reason I propose for its prevalence in academia is that it grants a scientific basis for communism and socialism, and the university elite subscribes to these philosophies, and they must tow the party line.

They have no answer to the cosmos having a beginning or Big Bang if you will.  The Cambrian explosion is the Big Bang of evolution and it is evidence to the contrary because species are fully formed.  There is tremendous peer pressure and desire for tenure to keep on believing in an impossible scheme--this is the only alternative to accepting God as the Creator, and they don't want to go there at all.  The forbidden word to evolutionists is "purpose" or "design," because that implies a Designer or that the cosmos and life have meaning behind them--this concept, known as teleology is anathema to evolutionists and you might say is a dirty word.   But all evidence suggests the Anthropic Principle or that earth was perfectly designed for man.  One author has termed earth as the visited and privileged planet.

Either God created life or it evolved--there's no other possibility!  We have seen that evolution is an impossibility, but people would rather believe it than accept God, because it is convenient and suits their sexual mores.  It is just morally comfortable to accept the tenet of evolution and it takes a leap of faith and a devoted life of faith, as though it were a faith or religion itself, and it is.  It takes more faith, however, to believe in evolution without sufficient evidence, than to believe in God or suspend judgment completely.  Believing you're an animal ultimately leads to acting like one!   Soli Deo Gloria!

The Rise Of Scientism

Scientism is defined as the act of harnessing science for unscientific endeavors or academic disciplines. It's when one thinks the only reliable truth is from science.

Some secularist scientists believe all our problems can be scientifically resolved and that science has the answers to our dilemmas if given enough time. Excuse me: Science does not have all the answers! Scientism, by definition, is when you make statements that science has no right to make, or are out of its domain or sphere of knowledge. One notable example is humanist astronomer Carl Sagan saying that "the cosmos is all there is or ever was or ever will be!" This is a metaphysical statement that scientists have no authority to answer.

History, by its very nature, is nonrepeatable, and no one was there at creation or the Big Bang so we have no eyewitnesses to verify the evidence. It's speculation, not science--history is not science, because you need to be able to control variables and have laboratory conditions, as well as repeatability and measurability.

Science is not a source of ethical, metaphysical, or philosophical truth. This is why evolution is out of its realm of knowledge--no one saw life begin and all attempts at creating life in the lab have failed. There is no final conflict between science and the Bible, in fact, it was Christianity that made science possible by promoting an orderly and law-abiding cosmos. The first scientists, such as Sir Francis Bacon, were Christians, and you don't have to deny your faith to be a good scientist--the majority of astronomers today are not atheists at all. Galileo and Copernicus were Christians and they were among the earliest of scientists.

Eastern religions never would've given birth to science, since they believe reality is an illusion called Maya. Christians affirm a Lawgiver, orderly and predictable laws and consequences for violation. Christians believe all truth is God's truth, and that includes scientific truth, and that it all meets at the top as Aquinas said. The Bible has never been proven to be in scientific error, and the scientific statements it does make are accurate: for instance, the water cycle was described long before we figured it out.

Scientism is when scientists hijack their views in the name of science to make philosophical, ethical, and metaphysical claims that it doesn't have any right to make. Several Nobel scientists have written a book called Cosmos, Bios & Theos, and have agreed that God is necessary to explain the complexities behind creation; we are not some fluke of nature!

To show the vanity of putting faith in science, the French Academy of Science published a brochure listing fifty-one "scientific facts" that controverted the Bible--today none of the so-called facts are believed! The Bible doesn't need correction, just faith in its self-attestation--if it appealed to some outside source for authority and legitimacy, then it couldn't be the Word of God, as it needed a higher authority for verification. What we say is that you don't have to defend a caged lion, it will take care of itself--and so the Bible can prove itself, it just needs to be read or reread. When they ask you to prove it, you tell them, "No way! You prove it, just try reading it--it will prove itself!"

In sum, all science can do is discover the know-how and learn by the scientific method, whereas to find the know-why you need religion or philosophy--don't confuse the two domains! It is a sad commentary on our society that science has become a religion. Faith in science is still faith, and is no different than putting faith in God or religion--you just have different presuppositions as your starting point and all knowledge begins in faith. Soli Deo Gloria!

A Primer On Epistemology

"The law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ" (John 1:17, NIV).
"Eliminate the impossible, and whatever remains, no matter how improbable, is true." (unknown).
"Tell me your certainties, I have enough doubts of my own." (Johann Wolfgang von Goethe).
"We have found all the questions, now let's find the answers." (G. K. Chesterton).
"... and a people without understanding shall come to ruin" (Hos. 4:14, ESV).
"Therefore my people go into exile for lack of knowledge..." (Isaiah 5:13, ESV).
NOTE THIS PHILOSOPHICAL AXIOM: ALL KNOWLEDGE BEGINS IN FAITH (FAITH PRECEDES REASON!). REMEMBER: A CHRISTIAN WITH FAITH HAS NOTHING TO FEAR FROM THE FACTS AND SCRUTINY.

They were "always learning and never coming to a knowledge of the truth" (cf. 2 Tim. 3:7)! That's probably why Socrates said that you must "admit your ignorance" to begin to learn. Sophomores in college think they know so much, but they have only begun to learn. Education is going from an unconscious to a conscious awareness of one's ignorance. Augustine said that he believes in order to understand; indeed faith comes before reason! We all have faith, whether in God, mankind, nature, science, logic, or religion, because everyone starts out with some presupposition they cannot prove. Faith in science is not inherently superior knowledge--it's still faith.

People erroneously have blind faith that science has disproved creationism or Christianity, and this is dangerous to all of us. We erroneously assume that believing something makes it true and not believing something makes it false; there is no universal belief, but there is universal truth. We must always be ready to back up our allegations and assertions with facts.

By the way, science is becoming "scientism," thinking it is the only true source of truth, and consequently, it's becoming a religion according to Carl Sagan, a professor at Cornell Univ. in astronomy. Science is not meant to answer philosophical, historical, legal, ethical, or religious issues, but restrict itself to the logical, observable, measurable, and repeatable. The scientific method, as invented by Sir Francis Bacon, is only one way to find truth. You can't have your minds made up so that you don't want to be confused with the facts! If you are a know-it-all that is unwilling to admit you could be wrong, you will never know the truth of the matter at hand.

There are facts that have evidence and can be proved by various means, then there are allegations and accusations that are unsubstantiated. When someone disseminates unsubstantiated so-called facts, it is slander, not news! Journalists know what sources are and their credibility factors. Unreliable sources are ignored and so are those that have lost credibility. Anonymous "leaks" are not good sources to publish as gospel truth and are fake news services that are the tabloids of the internet and unworthy, unreliable sources.

We don't have faith in faith for its own sake, but the object of our faith makes all the difference. We must be willing to admit we could be wrong to find the truth and also be willing to go wherever the evidence may lead, no matter how unpalatable. Sometimes truth is something we couldn't have guessed and is stranger than fiction--who wouldn't have thought the Godhead or Deity was triune. In examining the evidence we fit the theory to match the facts, we don't fit the facts to fit our theory! In short, there is Truth with a capital T and all truth meets at the top because it's God's truth according to Augustine and Aquinas. Remember that Jesus announced: "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life..." (cf. John 14:).

Jesus, being the incarnation of truth itself proves we can know it and that it doesn't change--truth is timeless and always relevant. Truth is nonnegotiable and isn't a short-term contract and we have a right to our own opinions, but not our own truth or fact (there are no "alternative facts" as Kellyanne Conway and Trump say). We all have the right to our own opinion but not to fabricate our own facts. The thing about truth is that Jesus promised us we'd find it if we searched for it with the right attitude. "You shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free" (cf. John 8:32). Jesus also said that if we are willing to do His will we shall know whether it is of God (cf. John 7:17).

Unbelievers are those who "reject the truth" (cf. Rom. 2:8) and repentance will be granted to some that they may "come to a knowledge of the truth." A sign of a true believer is that he is thirsty for and loves the truth: "... because they refused to love the truth and so be saved" (2 Thess. 1:10, ESV) they were judged and condemned.

Pseudo faith: Some people would say something is true because it works for them or feels right, these are fallacious presuppositions; John Dewey actually thought you couldn't evaluate the truth of an idea, only its usefulness (if it works!); the biggest misunderstanding is that all truth is relative and this would have to be a relative statement, making it meaningless! Ever since Pilate asked Jesus what truth is man has wondered if there is some absolute, universal truth for everyone everywhere--in antiquity "might made right!" There is truth in Christ who came to "bear witness of the truth" (cf. John 18:37). We must avoid the fallacious assertion that something may be true for one person, but not another and that everyone has their own truths that are only relative--we don't the right to fabricate our own truths! The Bible is truth and has the power to change or transform (cf. John 17:17) lives by virtue of that power.

In sum, Jesus said (cf. John 18:37) that everyone who is of the truth hears His voice--His sheep hear and recognize His voice and follow Him (John 10:27). In the final analysis, we need to be workers approved by God, who are "rightly handling the Word of truth" per 2 Tim. 2:15. Caveat: Beware of academia teaching the so-called theory of evolution as unquestioned scientific fact, when it's only a time-honored scientific tenet of faith!

"The Christian position is not that the truth is unknowable or that we are confused; it is that truth is knowable and we have rebelled," according to David Noebel. In application consider George Lucas' faith: "The conclusion that I've come to is that all religions are true." This is nonsensical and has no truth value, period; I rest my case! Soli Deo Gloria!

Scientific Creationism?

It is impossible to have a science of creation because no scientist was there to observe the event that only God and the sons of God saw. "Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth?" An event must also be repeatable to be valid scientifically. The only true knowledge we have on creation is the Bible or from theology, which we believe is a divine revelation--another accurate way to truth. When scientists claim they know how the earth was formed, it is only conjecture and induction and certainly not infallible. They hypothesize and theorize, but cannot know for absolute certain. "By faith, we understand that the universe was created...."

Now there are some Christians who don't believe in a literal 24-hour day in the Genesis 1 account. The sun wasn't created until the 4th day so it might be postulated that a day could be any length of time--like when we say, "Let's call it a day!" There is also the gap theory that says there is a pause between Gen. 1:1 and 1:2. Grammatically this could be interpreted as a title and then an explanation of the opening remark. The Bible doesn't intend to tell how long it took to create the earth, only that God created it.

Now, as far as man being created on the sixth day, it looks like Eve was also created on the 6th day--and I thought Adam had to name all the animals and get time to get lonely first before he met his match. Another discrepancy is that when you take everything literally, there is no time for the angelic rebellion. Were there angels before there was heaven? By the time of the temptation in the garden of Eden, there was already evil present in the cosmos.

The entire six days is looked on like one day later in Genesis ("On the day that I created...") As you may know, "day" in the Bible doesn't always refer to a 24 hour period, but may even be a thousand years, as in the "day of the Lord."

In summary: We have to be tolerant of Christians who believe scientific findings that don't directly contradict the Bible, e.g., evolution. The Bible is not a scientific textbook, but where it does say something scientific, it is inerrant. Keeping the main thing the main thing, we should be glad that one believes God did create the cosmos and not quibble over words or doctrines that have no relation to the Christian life, and are therefore considered "minor" doctrines.   Soli Deo Gloria!