The Fruits of Evolution
By Tom Willis
Contrary to claims, evolution is not “another scientific theory.” In fact evolution is not “a scientific theory.” Scientific theories are ones that can be tested for verification... in the laboratory, or in the field. Newton's Laws of Motion have been successfully tested, millions of times. Likewise with the Gas Laws, Energy Laws, Laws of Electro-Magnetism, etc. All truly scientific theories have been tested successfully many times. But, the principal propositions of Evolution have never been successfully tested!! The first evolution proposition is that life formed once, in nature. Please note that this is two propositions: “life formed” and “once.” Both are historical propositions which cannot be science because history is not testable or observable. Incidentally, the idea of Life forming in nature was not truly a separate theory as evolutionists frequently claim. Darwin proposed that Life may have formed in a warm pond as part of his “evolution theory.” The reason I mention this is to remind you that, contrary to many claims, evolution was, from the beginning, an atheist theory. Of course, the feasibility of the historical claim can be tested, and has been. Man has tried to watch life form, and has tried to cause it to form, countless times, with 100% experimental failure! Therefore, by definition, life forming in “Nature” is not a scientific theory, whether it supposedly happened yesterday or 500 million years ago. And, it has undoubtedly never happened. Life forming in nature is a belief held by some people that all of science testifies against. It is a classic Category III Faith, one held in spite of the scientific evidence!
The second major proposition of evolution, though historically popularized a few hours or weeks earlier, is that all life on Earth has a single common ancestor. Thus, according to evolution, humans, cows, fish and birds all have the same great, great, great grandmother at some distant point in the past. This proposition may, at first, seem a bit difficult to test. But, in evolution science, as indicated, testing is not important. Believing is what counts. But, like life forming, there are ways to test evolution. One obvious way is that, since evolution holds that all biological structures formed in nature, not by acts of creation, and since there are well over a million different biological structures that purportedly occurred in the last billion or so theoretical years, with most of them occurring in the last 500 million years, then man should have observed a new biological structure at least every 500 years. Of course, like life forming, man has never observed a new biological structure! Yet, evolution is the most believed scientific theory in history. Even the highly, and successfully, tested theories are not believed as strongly or taught as fervently as evolution.
Why Is Evolution Promoted So Fervently?
Why? Why is a theory with absolutely no scientific support promoted so fervently? And, as science? Why is it virtually mandated that you believe it to get degrees at many institutions? The answer is related to the title of this article. It should be obvious from the preceding that Evolution is not promoted because it is highly attested to by the evidence. Rather, evolution produces a fruit greedily sought by its advocates. Those people who have never acknowledged Christ's authoritative claim to mastery of life often find it desirable to be able to proclaim that their decision was wise. They hear in all their schooling that science fortifies, yea, even proves the truth of their decision. Thus, they, literally without thinking, repeat the claim. In the last couple weeks, three different people have called me to declare Christianity silly... because of science! In every case I have told them that I did not want to live a silly life. Would they please give me at least one, or more if they like, scientific evidence of their claim, one fossil, one new biological structure... anything. In every case I got nothing. These three callers felt they were swaggering in overwhelming knowledge compared to my ignorance. Not one of them could think of any sound reason for their swagger. OK, one did manage to say, “There is a consensus among scientists.” I told him fine, there was a consensus among German scientists to kill Jews, Poles, blacks, cripples, and injured WWI veterans. And Russian scientists all believed in Lamarkian evolution. Which consensus do you believe, and why? Think of it. These three young men called me to exercise their pride in their wisdom and relish in my foolishness. I call this behavior that of a fool, exactly as God does. Of course, I didn't tell them that. In truth, one of the three actually admitted I had thoroughly answered his charge. Perhaps there is hope for him. One in three is a pretty good batting average.
A Few of the Other Fruits of Evolution
First and foremost, evolution is desired as a weapon with which to bash Christianity. Contrary to pop-science, Darwin did not invent evolution, but it clearly turned him against Christianity. Please note, I did not say it made him convert from Christianity to non-Christianity. It is my conviction Darwin grew up near some forms of Christianity and may even have thought he was a Christian. I think the evidence indicates that he was not.
The key for our topic, The Fruits of Evolution, is that it clearly seems to convince some people. For example, Darwin claimed “discovering the truth of evolution” made him an atheist. Whether we believe him is irrelevant. My reading of his book convinced me that it was the most irrational, unscientific book I had ever read, especially among books that so many asserted were science. Evolution either made Darwin an atheist, or, more likely, fueled his atheist convictions, as it did for Thomas and Aldus Huxley, Ernst Haeckel, Stephen Gould, Donald Johanson, and countless others. Yes, Agnes, I am aware Huxley invented the word agnostic to describe himself, but like all evolutionists Huxley was a liar. He defined agnostic in a way that enabled him to believe evolution and argue fervently and irrationally for it, in spite of the total absence of evidence. But, his definition forbade him and all others from believing Christianity “because of the lack of sufficient evidence” to prove all of its claims. Agnosticism, like evolutionism, became merely one ploy that they patted themselves on the back for their conviction that evolution gave atheism the appearance of respectability.
Lately, the strident irrational arrogance of the new atheism, exemplified by Richard Dawkins is also undergirded by evolutionism. If Jesus is right, and I surely believe that He is, it matters not whether you call yourself an atheist or agnostic. You have consigned yourself to both temporal foolishness and eternal torment. Thus, Evolutionism produces the worst possible fruit for its adherents, “new” or “old.” You may have noticed that the new atheists lose the debate as badly as their forerunners, and yet, express the same level of arrogant confidence that they are wise, their opponents are fools, and they really ought to have won. “Professing themselves wise, they became fools,” Romans 1:22. Now, as implied above, evolutionism produces both temporal and eternal bad fruit. The temporal, while not as harmful as the eternal, can produce very serious temporal fruit especially in its effects on others. One of the most profound temporal fruits of evolutionism is that it “furnishes proof that, at least major portions of the Bible have their history wrong.” Evolutionists inevitably are essentially forced into discarding other major Bible positions; because they know that some of the Bible is wrong! Remember, (most) evolutionists do not believe in the eternal. So, think about where they really are with essential questions like “right and wrong.” Their theology tells them that one cannot be sure that this or that Bible-position is authoritative, so they must arrive at their own position on these issues.
This leaves the World without any authoritative answers to questions of right and wrong! Please understand, there is no way I can overemphasize the magnitude of the problem this leaves for mankind. We are the only species that expresses any interest in the subjects, “right and wrong.” But, evolutionism has proven the Bible has errors, leaving us no basis for selecting the true from the erroneous. This leaves all of Mankind with no independent authority on the key subject of “right and wrong.” If someone breaks into your house and robs you, a Christian response might be to feed him... but how often? Jesus said “70 times 7” times, but that was a brother who had repented, not a stranger breaking the law. Also remember that this passage in Matthew 18 begins with a brother sinning against you and the first half ends with Jesus saying, “And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.” Matthew 18:17 Regardless of the interesting and challenging question of the best “Christian response,” is there a human knowledge of right and wrong? Since “Evolution is science, and evolution has proven the Bible wrong in some key instances, it is silly to treat the Bible as authoritative elsewhere.” The key here is that the fruit, of evolution is to prove that the Bible is not authoritative in any question of right and wrong! Therefore, “Neither you, nor anybody else have any basis for judging my actions!” Regardless of some claims to the contrary, I think evolutionists regard this fruit of evolution as the greatest. And bear in mind, it is not just harmful to you and others. It is even more harmful to the evolutionist because it tends to isolate him from the knowledge that he is a sinner and is accountable to God for that sin, and that he will be held accountable for it! I haven't even mentioned, but hope to in a follow-up article, that evolutionism has also produced the fruit fueling the rapid growth in abortion, homosexuality, socialism, global warming, and the return of eugenics and euthanasia.
How to Extricate a Person from Evolutionism
But I do not wish to leave my readers dangling over Darwin's imaginary pond, with merely a list of problems and no solution. Since evolutionists offer their arguments because they want their life and life-style to remain intact, is there any hope for them? What can we do? Well, many that I know in the Creation Science movement came from evolutionism. So evolutionism is not an unchangeable position. One of the most effective Creation Scientists I have ever known was an atheist, PhD biology professor. He was actually hitch-hiking when he was picked up by Dr. Henry Morris, the founder of the Institute for Creation Research, who converted him to a Christian and a creationist! He did not achieve this by ignoring evolution and “loving him,” as some are constantly arguing. Rather, he demonstrated that he truly loved him by addressing his most important issue. I am not suggesting that this is the only approach. I am suggesting that ignoring his key issue is not love, and is probably silly. If you do not feel qualified to address the issue directly, you may choose other subjects, but you can use his evolutionism as an excuse for a “follow-up.” It might be a book, a video, a debate, inviting him to a presentation, whatever the Lord provides. My key point is that, it is not “love” to ignore a person's most important issue. It may be love, to await the right time or place. How might you proceed? The details are individual, yours and his, but some key ideas tend to be universal. 1) Establish the tenuousness of evolutionism by pointing out that explosions never produce products, life never forms in Nature or the lab, and Man, therefore, science, has never observed the formation of a new biological structure. 2) If evolution turns out to be wrong, then there must be a God, can you really be certain that He did not choose to offer Jesus, his son, as the doorway to Him? 3) In the light of (1) and (2), does it really make sense to refuse to examine the claims of the Creator in the hopes that an impossible theory may turn out to overcome the impossible? Coupled with love, I think the approach wins. If it sometimes does not, well, we all cast a few pearls before swine.