CLICK HERE TO SIGN UP FOR OUR FREE BI-MONTHLY CREATION CLUB MAGAZINE
Visiting a Buddhist Temple, you get a sampling of religions that hold man in high esteem… They idolize the teachings of Gautama Buddha, study him, and attempt to attain his level of perfection. A lot of people look at the jolly Budai that adorns American curio shops as a god.
The thing is, I could point to similarities of this — how do I call it — “person-worshipping”? …in MANY RELIGIONS.
Charles Darwin is no exception! This man, whose only credentialed degree was in theology! Is celebrated by the scientific community as a saint, an icon, set on a pedestal, almost worshipped. His reach WAS significant, and the ideas he published have had global circulation because universities peddle only one official religion… Darwinism.
A quick search will reveal that the number of works published each year on the topic of Christianity are almost matched by those on the topic of evolution.
Wait a minute, you might be saying! Christianity is religion, while evolution is simply studying science… so of COURSE you’ll find a lot of people studying science!
The truth is, BOTH claim to have the keys to understanding life and death. And while they both give distinctly different answers about our origins, they both also claim things about our future as well.
The Bible claims that Life is the result of an eternal Being. In other words, all life on earth comes from Life everlasting. This is consistent with scientific study which shows that life doesn’t come from non-living matter. The Bible claims that death comes from our disobedience to our Creator and our sinful nature. It claims that the Universe is Designed, and therefore laws, physics, nature, and life should operate consistently to those inherent design principles.
Darwinian evolution claims that life evolves from simple to complex, and implies that the first life forms must have come from something that was non-living. This defies all observation, but Charles Darwin isn’t to be questioned! You dare not mock this saint or risk the ridicule that it will bring.
Why would critical thought be condemned in an institution engaged in the unbiased study for truth? But telling a biologist that you aren’t convinced, that Darwin’s conclusions seem illogical, is akin to blasphemy within the sacred halls of our colleges and universities — the churches of Darwin!
The religion of naturalism is forced without alternative as one by one, people line up to pay homage and worship at the feet of this icon, Charles Darwin. Science? Or a religious practice of worshipping a racist, misogynistic, man and his antiquated 19th century ideas?
I’m David Rives, Truly the Heavens Declare the Glory of God.
CLICK HERE TO SIGN UP FOR OUR FREE BI-MONTHLY CREATION CLUB MAGAZINE
Darwin has been refuted by science itself over the decades. Micro evolution or genetics continues to be used to support the mechanism of Macro evolution or Darwinism amongst the evolutionary believers and defenders of their faith.
Micro evolutions is uncontested as a feature of God’s design for His Creation.
Darwinism, is the magical extrapolation of observable micro evolution as a causative force responsible for the evolving of life from the primordial one celled bacterium to the multi celled organization of mammals and ultimately primates. The fossil record is only one area of investigation that continues to refute the theory.
Michael Behe a well respected micro biologist and a member of the intelligent design community spoke to Darwin’s own stated challenge to his theory of evolution, namely Irreducible Complexity. This is the theme of Behe’s work: Darwin’s Black Box. In his book, Behe systematically describes the micro biological processes that are interictally interconnected together to facilitate a functioning organism. He also explains that due to the irreducible complexity of each contributing element to a process such as the ability for an eye to see, the removal of one small element results in complete blindness. The theory of evolution demands that a function must contribute to the organism to make it more fit and thereby survive to transmit this fitness to its progeny. While the less fit cannot compete and ultimately perish from the gene pool. Behe shows the observable science discloses no mechanism where an incremental evolving of one element of function can impart the complex function to that organism let alone its progeny. Only a murid of simultaneous evolving elements with extremely complex organization and connectivity can provide an organism with the ability to see. The more honest evolutionists cannot deny this dilemma.
Stephen Meyer addressed another more foundational problem with evolutionary theory. In his book Signature in the Cell he traces the history of the discovery of the DNA molecule by Watson and Crick. In the revelation of how Watson and Crick came to their discovery he incriminates Darwinism by showing that their ambitions to discovery were purely egotistical unburdened by theory and through larceny were able to confiscate the physical evidence from dedicated research scientists blinded from the discovery, by their own false assumptions predicated on the theory itself. While they flailed about seeking the chemistry of evolution at the genetic level they were not even cognizant that the chemistry demanded an almost inert structure to insulate DNA from destruction and to conserve the encoded information within the molecule from being compromised. This reality of the conservation of information for the development of a functional organism points to design and negates the theory of random mutations as a causative means of the organization or evolution of living things. The very idea of encoding information cannot be separated from intention and design. Coding information cannot be a random process it requires a designer.
When Darwin was alive there was enough scientific ignorance to allow his unverified theory to exist. After decades of scientific discovery and research and modern tools of observation it takes an intentional breach of honesty for a scientist to exchange wishful thinking over the now observable realities of design.
They will sound the praises of Darwin right up until you point out that he was wrong about the nature of biological heredity (blending of factors) and the major cause of variation over generations (use and disuse of parts), and the fundamental logical flaw in the claim that small changes such as we observe could accumulate and combine to produce “big” changes (change isn’t a simple commodity, there are different kinds of change). Then they will say that Darwin was brilliant for his time but we’ve learned a lot since then, so his mistakes don’t matter.
The historical perspective is valuable, however, as we can now see that evolutionists never had a sound argument for their beliefs to begin with, but a philosophical preference which they embedded in their view of science, namely, naturalism. By making science a program of naturalistic philosophy (essentially atheism), some form of gradual change over vast periods of time becomes the only apparently plausible “scientific” explanation for how everything came o be.
…because they refused the love of the truth that would have saved them. For this reason God will send them a powerful delusion so that they believe the lie, …2 Thessalonians 2:11