If evolution is true, then faith must abound for all creation beliefs.
It’s time for people of good will and right reason to gracefully but firmly end the charade of modern science regarding evolution. The charade manifests itself in the longsuffering public posture of polite deference toward those who treat evolutionary theory as scientific dogma.
We can end the charade, despite the evolutionists’ best efforts, because modern science no longer supports the 19th-century science of evolutionary theory. If one bothers to seek beyond what academic textbooks carefully spoon-feed one will find that serious 21st-century scientists have well-founded doubts about evolutionary theory’s explanatory power. Here is one example.
Beyond the many purely logical and rational arguments against evolutionary theory (e.g., The Natural Selection Paradox), a larger problem lies behind the charade of dogmatic evolutionists: the problem of faith.
Does believing in a naturalistic creation story require faith?
Here’s the party line on creation according to evolution and, alternatively, creation according to the Bible: One is science. The other is religion. We are told. One is supported by science, the other is believed by faith. We are told. One is open to questioning in search of real truth. The other dogmatically presents a version of truth. We are told.
Which is which when it comes to evolution? Ironically, in the charade before us evolution seems to be the creation story most akin to religion. Many religions openly embrace evolution and others seem to be agnostic on the subject. And while religious views are publicly debated and challenged in religious education, evolution cannot be publicly debated or challenged in science education.
Can anyone—including scientists—really question evolution as the creation story in education? Can evolutionary theory be openly questioned by teachers and parents in science education? Is evolutionary theory not pressed dogmatically upon the minds of every student studying human origins?
Has evolution risen to the level of a strange new hybrid characterized by scientific dogmatism? The answer becomes evident any time the claims of evolutionary processes are questioned in education circles. Try it and see.
Dogmatism has its place in religion. In fact, dogmatism is expected in religion. Dogmatism in any form is expected from faith belief about the world around us.
Religious dogmatism, when permitted to be wielded over others forces an intolerant subservience to faith beliefs not held by many. And when wielded by authoritarian rule dissenters cannot object without being ostracized.
What about scientific dogmatism? Scientific dogmatism is more akin to intellectual bullying, where intolerant believers wield authoritarian rule to seek subservience to scientific faith beliefs not held my many. And dissenters cannot object without being ostracized.
Scientific faith beliefs in evolution? Explain.
OK, we will.
First, natural selection is shown to do nothing to cause or explain any evolutionary change in any ancestor of all current living things. To believe natural selection participates in evolutionary change is a pure faith belief. This view is explained in The Natural Selection Paradox.
Second, when investigated more closely, the naturalistic underpinnings of evolutionary theory reveal an unexpected find: the entire naturalistic enterprise of science is built on a foundation of faith!
Evolution as a naturalistic explanation for human existence from a first life form is the creation story for those who have chosen to believe a larger philosophy of nature, variously held by many as naturalism, materialism, rationalism, atheism, or any other “ism” that denies God’s action in nature. In the Godless-isms‘ view science is free of all faith beliefs.
But is it? It seems the position of all the Godless-isms and their creation story of evolution rests on at least two necessary faith beliefs.
First, all the Godless-isms must believe in the Godless creation and sustenance of a necessary first life form having extremely complex replicable information-coded DNA. Try as they might with great gusto and hopeful headlines, there is no plausible explanation for that first guy (or gal). The best evolutionists have to offer is the theory of Francis Crick (DNA’s co-discoverer) that the first necessary life form was sent to earth on a rocket from another place in the universe. Lucky us!
Second, going further back than Crick’s DNA-shooting aliens, every theory of all the Godless-isms relies on the necessary presence of matter (or energy) in the universe. Matter in every Godless-ism must necessarily be eternally existent and uncaused, or it spontaneously appeared out of nothing, uncaused. Either option is a pure faith belief.
The first necessary faith belief, a first replicable life form to start the great engine of random variation and natural selection rumbling blindly uphill toward humans, has no scientific explanation. It is a faith belief necessary to the theory of evolution, complete with maybe this, maybe that stories to satisfy the faithful.
The second necessary faith belief, the belief in uncaused, eternally existing or spontaneously appearing uncaused matter, is also a faith belief. There is no scientific reason to believe any matter in the universe exists uncaused, or appeared “poof” out of nothing. This belief is indistinguishable from belief in magic and can only be maintained seriously as an article of faith, also supported by “maybe this, maybe that” stories to satisfy the faithful.
So is the theory of evolution more akin to science or religion? Faith beliefs alone do not render it necessarily so. The real question is whether evolution is presented publicly dogmatically or tentatively. One is a religious tendency, the other a scientific tendency.
Again, is the theory of evolution more akin to a scientific theory or religious belief?
Think about it.
(C) 2023 Creation Reformation
Discover truth! Order Creation Reformation Publishing’s new book, Without Excuse: Evidence for Creation by God. Enjoy!
Comments