A theologian prominent in the blogosphere has posted an article Why People Reject Evolution. It is a re-post of one of those flippant smart-alec type blog-posts that put-downs with ridicule those with views the theologian in question himself once held. We can only wonder why he shows so little compassion or understanding as he now mercilessly mocks and taunts those who continue to stand fast where he once stood. Is this some sort of Freudian attempt to suggest one was once a total idiot and therefore deserving of mockery? I’d prefer to think that once we emerge from views we now find embarrassing that we’d attempt to approach others with those views with more depth of understanding and compassion.
The first thing that hit me about the list of reasons people reject evolution was that they bizarrely omitted the central fact about the theory of evolution that probably all the books of evolutionary scientists I have ever read stress most emphatically. How can a list of reasons people reject evolution omit the one thing about the theory of evolution that is most central according to the view of nearly all evolutionists?
Here are the “top ten” reasons in headline form from the linked article. See if you can see the one key fact missing:
1. You think “it hasn’t been observed” is a good argument against it.
2. You think we’ve never found a transitional fossil.
3. You think macroevolution is an inherently different process than microevolution.
4. You think mutations are always negative.
5. You think it has anything to do with the origin of life, let alone the origins of the universe.
6. You use the phrase “it’s only a theory” and think you’ve made some kind of substantive statement.
7. You think acceptance of evolution is the same as religious faith.
8. You think our modern understanding of it rests on a long series of hoaxes perpetuated by scientists.
9. You don’t like Pokémon because you think it “promotes” evolution.
10. You think it’s inherently opposed to Christianity or the Bible.
Hang on! Did the author(s) of Genesis really write account(s) they (if only they knew) would be consistent with evolution?
Ah, the author of this blog-post comes to the rescue and explains:
[I]f evolution is true — as everything we know about biology, and a number of overlapping fields of inquiry indicate — then it is incapable of conflicting with the God-breathed truth of sacred scripture. If there appears to be a disagreement between the two, then the interpretation of the passage in question must be incorrect. For the Bible-believing Christian, there is no other option.
You may find it hard to believe that this was the blog post linked and endorsed by a real Associate Professor of a real university, Butler University. I don’t know if there is any academic authority that allows the wider public to query the legitimacy of academics employed in American universities who actually appear to endorse the Bible over — or alongside — everything else, simply “because”!
But what is that reason so many evolutionists stress yet was omitted in the above?
Well, what has registered with me so frequently from the likes of Dawkins is that there is nothing pre-planned about evolution. It is totally at the whim of natural forces. Humans are not the ultimate goal of some process. Indeed, we may disappear and prove to the great void of nothingness that intelligent life has less chance of long-term survival than grasses and microbes.
That is, there is nothing whatever that has been guided by some supernatural force.
I don’t understand how a professor (or even a mere “associate-professor”) of any legitimate modern educational institution could still be a devout Christian even mildly disposed towards any of the fundamental precepts at the foundation of the Bible or Christianity could claim to believe in evolution — as understood by the bulk of evolutionists themselves — and still call themselves a Christian, let alone mock Creationists.
It seems the only difference to me is that the debate among such Christians comes down to a fight between “young-earth creationists” and “old earth creationists”.
The only difference between the two is that the latter believes there is divine finger fiddling with the processes at critical steps along the way. And such a belief is not consistent with – it is INconsistent with — a true understanding of evolution.
Latest posts by Neil Godfrey (see all)
- A Civilisation Quite Unlike Any Other - 2021-06-19 11:30:52 GMT+0000
- The Etiquette of Modesty among the Naked Aborigines - 2021-06-17 05:50:42 GMT+0000
- Spiritual Management of the Cosmos: Aboriginal and Christian - 2021-06-16 09:34:41 GMT+0000
If you enjoyed this post, please consider donating to Vridar. Thanks!