W
hy has evolution becomeso widely accepted,andwhy has the Bible cometo be viewed with suchhostility? What has changed?Only a few generations ago laws pre-vented the teaching of the theory of evolu-tion in some communities and regions inthe United States. The Bible was commonlyaccepted as true and a reliable account of ourorigins. But now almost the opposite is true.The Bible is banned from classrooms inAmerican schools,and serious discussion of the biblical view of the creation of our uni-verse—and our human origins—is forbid-den. At the same time,criticism of the theoryof evolution is at times ruthlessly suppressedin academic and scientific circles.Certainly not all scientists agree thatno Creator exists and that we as humanbeings are the product of randomchance. In 1972 the California StateBoard of Education asked NASAdirector Wernher von Braun,who hasbeen called the father of the Americanspace program,for his thoughts on theorigin of the universe,life and thehuman race. Here’s how he responded:“For me,the idea of a creation isnot conceivable without invoking thenecessity of design. One cannot beexposed to the law and order of theuniverse without concluding that theremust be design and purpose behind itall. In the world around us,we can beholdthe obvious manifestations of an ordered,structured plan or design ...“And we are humbled by the powerfulforces at work on a galactic scale,and thepurposeful orderliness of nature thatendows a tiny and ungainly seed with theability to develop into a beautiful flower.The better we understand the intricacies of the universe and all it harbors,the more rea-son we have found to marvel at the inherentdesign upon which it is based ...“To be forced to believe only one conclu-sion—that everything in the universe hap-pened by chance—would violate the veryobjectivity of science itself. Certainly thereare those who argue that the universeevolved out of a random process,but whatrandom process could produce the brainof a man or the system of the human eye?“Some people say that science has beenunable to prove the existence of a Designer.They admit that many of the miracles in theworld around us are hard to understand,andthey do not deny that the universe,as mod-ern science sees it,is indeed a far morewondrous thing than the creation medievalman could perceive. But they still maintainthat since science has provided us with somany answers the day will soon arrivewhen we will be able to understand eventhe fundamental laws of nature without aDivine intent. They challenge science toprove the existence of God. But must wereally light a candle to see the sun? ...“What strange rationale makes somephysicists accept the inconceivable electronas real while refusing to accept the reality of a Designer on the ground that they cannotconceive of Him?”(Scott Huse,
The Col-lapse of Evolution,
1997,pp. 159-160).Many educated people accept the theoryof evolution. But is it true? Curiouslyenough,our existence as humans is one of the best arguments against it. According toevolutionary theory,the traits that offer thegreatest advantage for survival are passedfrom generation to generation. Yet humanreproduction itself argues powerfully againstthis fundamental premise of evolution.If evolution is the guiding force inhuman development,how is it that higherforms of life evolved with male and femalesexes? If humans are the pinnacle of theevolutionary process,how is it that we havethe disadvantage of requiring a member of the opposite sex to reproduce,when lowerforms of life—such as bacteria,virusesand protozoa—are sexless and far moreprolific? If they can reproduce by far sim-pler methods,why can’t we? If evolutionis true,what went wrong?Let’s take it a step further. If humans arethe result of evolution continually reinforc-ing characteristics that offer a survivaladvantage while eliminating those thathinder perpetuation,how can we explaina human infant?Among thousands of species the newlyborn (or newly hatched) are capable of sur-vival within a matter of days or,in somecases,only minutes
.
Many never even seetheir parents. Yet,among humans,an infantis utterly helpless—not for days but for upto several
years
after birth.A human baby is reliant on adults for thenourishment,shelter and care he or sheneeds to survive. Meanwhile,caringfor that helpless infant is a distinct sur-vival
dis
advantage for adults,sincegiving of their time and energy lessenstheir own prospects for survival.If evolution is true,and humansare the pinnacle of the evolutionaryprocess,why does a process as basic ashuman reproduction fly in the face of everything that evolution holds true?Regrettably,such obvious flaws inthe theory are too often overlooked.Even Charles Darwin,whose theo-ries about evolution took the worldby storm,had second thoughts. In hislater years he reflected on what he hadstarted:“I was a young man with unformedideas. I threw out queries,suggestions,won-dering all the time over everything; and tomy astonishment the ideas took like wild-fire.
People made a religion of them”
(William Federer,
America’s God and Country,
1996,p. 199,emphasis added).Now,almost a century and a half after thepublication of Darwin’s
Origin of Species,
we can see where his thinking has led. InEurope in particular,belief in a personalGod has plummeted. In the United States,court decisions have interpreted constitu-tional guarantees of freedom
of
religion asfreedom
from
religion—effectively banningpublic expression of religious beliefs anddenying the country’s rich religious heritage.Meanwhile,the world languishes in thesorrow and suffering resulting from reject-ing absolute moral standards. With noabsolute standards,we have no reason to
2
Creation or Evolution:Does It Really Matter What You Believe?
Society’s Dramatic Shift
If we are the pinnacle
of an evolutionary process,why is a human infant so helpless, and for so long,compared to the newborn of other species?
© 2000 PhotoDisc, Inc.
Leave a Comment