Christian Life 

Evolution: blind faith and bogus science

Ever have trouble getting to grips with the 'Evolution versus Creation' debate?. Philip Wren says, don't leave it to the scientists - and don't leave evolution's lies to your children.

by Philip Wren  

Fossil evidence testifies to creation not evolution
Creation picture

WE have recently come to the end of the first wave of programmes in which the BBC has been celebrating Charles Darwin. I only watched a couple of the programmes on offer and therefore know very little more about Darwin than I did before. Like most people I have never read his works. His writing is tedious and does not encourage perseverance except by the dedicated reader.
At school I was taught that evolution was proved. Not questioning what I was taught, I had to find a way of reconciling science and faith. I think that I held some foggy idea that if evolution was true the Bible could be rescued by a belief that man was a special creation. My personal turning point came with reading, Evolution and the Authority of the Bible, by Nigel M de S Cameron. Below is a quote from the first chapter in which Cameron spells out the pivotal importance of evolution to modern secular society:

For whether or not Darwinian (or neo- Darwinian) evolution actually happened, it must be admitted on all hands that without the theory or some equivalent the modern secular world would be quite unable to give an account of its self. Its whole self-understanding rests on the idea that there are natural processes that will account for all present phenomena. The atheist and agnostic recognise well enough that the theory of evolution must be true, and in consequence - as some eminent men have actually said - whatever the difficulties in believing the theory (and it has faced and does face strong challenges for instance of a mathematical nature, which evolutionists acknowledge) they are incomparably less than the difficulties involved in rejecting the theory, since that would imply special creation; and special creation would imply God.

The 'challenges... of a mathematical nature' mentioned in the quote probably refers to the work of Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe who had, in the same year (1983), published a book demonstrating that the mathematical probability of evolution by chance was so small that it could be safely considered impossible. Sometimes evolution is accused of being a religion. This brings scorn from the secularist for by definition a religion has to have a God. Although not a religion, evolution is a belief system which underpins a form of faith. We have to understand the pivotal nature of evolution in modern thought. It is not a subject which can be debated. For the secular humanist world to exist evolution must be true. To question evolution is to attack the foundations of modern society.

Foggy thinking

The above are strong words about evolution. Cameron reserved even stronger words for foggy Christian thinking, which sought compromise between science and faith:

In this chapter and the following we hope to point out why any serious reading of the early narratives of Genesis will find them in conflict with the thinking of modern science, such that harmony with the evolutionary idea is not available except by the abandonment of Genesis. Another way of putting this is to say that the doctrine that scripture teaches, the essential structure of Christian truth, is at heart irreconcilable with evolution. Hanging in the balance is the fate of orthodox Christianity. The implications of evolution for Christian theology, which evangelical thinkers have scarcely begun to face, are devastating.

With a challenge to the logical inconsistency of my faith, where was I to go? Fortunately I had started to discover those writers who were to rescue me. Authors who took the available scientific evidence and reinterpreted it.

A sleight of hand

45 years ago the case for evolution was presented as being irrefutable. Accepting what I was taught, I failed to recognise the sleightof- hand by which this case was made. It lies in the definition of evolution . of which there are many. Just two definitions will serve here: 'micro-evolution' and 'macro-evolution'. Micro-evolution is not disputed by anyone. It is universally accepted that species have the ability to adapt to changing environments. This can be observed and verified. The genetic make-up of all living creatures contains the information to allow considerable changes. The sleight-of-hand occurs when the proven is then applied to the unproven macro-evolution . the postulated transformation from one kind into another. This has never been observed and no mechanism to allow it to take place exists.

Science has moved on

In the last five decades science has moved on. At school I was taught that life probably originated in some sort of chemical soup which was zapped by a huge electrical discharge to form proteins and then cells. I apologise, as today this seems to come out of the 'little green men in flying saucers' branch of science, but it was what we were taught and accepted. We now know that even the simplest single cell living organism is incredibly complex. It contains vast amounts of information to enable it to function and reproduce. The first problem the modern evolutionist has to tackle is how the simplest living cell came into existence. No one has come up with a plausible explanation.

Going back to the point made in the preceding paragraph, there is no known mechanism by which genetic information can be improved and no known example of it ever happening. Improvement is obviously essential if a single cell is to evolve into a more advanced creature. The opposite is known to be true. There are mechanisms which counter and correct any changes. Some look to adaptation and mutation of species as the process by which improvement takes place, but these both result in a reduction in genetic information.

Two essentials for the acceptance of evolution – the origin of life and the advancement of creatures – have no plausible explanation. But it goes much further. I was told at school that in some way, which I now see was never explained, fossils had 'something to do' with the proof of evolution. My gratitude is to those who have shown me that fossils testify to creation. Darwin believed that if his ideas were true the evidence would be found in the fossils. In fact by now the museums of the world should be stacked with millions of examples of missing links to prove the evolutionary tree. What a surprise, there are only a handful of dubious examples and all of those are contested by scientists.

Then there are questions over symbiotic relationships where one creature is supposed to have evolved in parallel with another. To follow Fred Hoyle's statistical methods, the probability of it happening is so infinitely small that we can take it as impossible. We may ask 'what about the fact that life needs life to support life?' How did the simplest cells bridge the gap of the lack of other life to create an environment in which to develop? There is also the problem of apparent design. The secular evolutionist is forced to rely on blind faith that it must be the product of evolution. The one thing we can say with certainty about macro-evolution is that it never happened because it could never happen. If you wish to look into these ideas in more depth there are many very good sources of information for example, the Creation Resources Trust P. O. Box 3237, Yeovil BA22 7WD. www. crt. org. uk. They send out a regular newsletter and also arrange meetings. Also recommended are Answers in Genesis and Creation Research.

Why does this matter?
It matters...
• for our children. As Ken Ham of Answers in Genesis has pointed out, children from Christian homes will be taught Bible stories in Sunday School. At school they will be taught that science has proved those stories to be myth and fable. It is not surprising that 70 to 80 percent of children from Christian families abandon church in their teens.
• because of the consequent loss of authority credited to the Bible and the Church. If parts of the Bible are myth, what parts can be trusted?
• because evangelism is an uphill struggle against a secular worldview that has been allowed to portray faith as irrational.
• because evolution is the foundation of modern secular society. We deplore the breakdown of our society that has resulted from secular humanism. Instead of fighting a rearguard action to preserve a few remaining Christian values we need to attack the foundation. If the foundations are weakened the structure will crumble.
• because many Christians are conned into thinking that they must compromise. They seek a middle way which holds together a belief in God and evolution. They claim to avoid the extremes of both the militant atheist and Christian fundamentalist. But there is no middle way. The two worldviews are irreconcilable. The Biblical account hinges on the truth of Genesis. It states that sin and death entered this world when Adam fell. Evolution teaches that violence and death were in the world long before man existed. If God created through evolution then He is barbaric. If that were the God we were asked to trust, I would throw in my lot with the atheists.

Time to stand

In my experience those Christians who dismiss creationism have never examined the case for creation. Creation makes the best sense of the available scientific evidence. Christianity is a rational evidence-based faith that makes perfect sense of the world as we experience it. In contrast secular atheism is irrational, without supporting evidence . and founded on blind faith in what can never be proved. It is a strong delusion. Evolution is not a fringe issue to be left to the few who are motivated enough to challenge its false premises. Evolution needs to be tackled if the church is to regain credibility. Are you angry that you were blinded for so long and that so many are being misled by bogus science? It is time for the church to be much bolder in standing for the truth of creation. You can do that by supporting those who are already making a stand for truth.

Adapted from an article in Sword magazine (Sept/Oct 2009) and published with permission



Ed foonote: Check out Creation Resources Trust and Answers in Genesis

Creation is a cinema production which details Darwin's "struggle between faith and reason" as he wrote On The Origin of Species. It depicts him as a man who loses faith in God following the death of his beloved 10-year-old daughter, Annie.
US distributors have shunned the film as being hugely divisive in a country where, according to a Gallup poll conducted in February, only 39 per cent of Americans believe in the theory of evolution.

Philip Wren, 17/12/2009

(page   1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   11   12   13   14   15   16   17   18)
Penny Lee 16/01/2014 19:00

I agree with you about the plethora of translations available today. Surely, it makes sense to keep the same basic translation and only modernise the language, such as taking out the Thees, Thous, begats etc. or replacing a word when the meaning of the original one has changed its meaning to something quite different.

It seems now that you can keep checking with each translation until you find the one which says what you want it to say!
Colin Ford 16/01/2014 20:40

I certainly agree with you "It makes sense..." as you say, but as you know we live in a fallen, and a now more exponentially rapidly falling world, where nothing makes sense any more with regard to our so-called "Queen's English"? 'Gay' meaneth something completely different, and apparently people say "wicked" when they meaneth "good"! From whence cameth this confusion? To "modernise" as thou saith, doth cause much confusion? Verily canst thou not see the problem? As said in my last posting, I have now been delivered from KJV onlyism, but as we know, because of this translation has God been pleased to honour this once most favoured of lands, so I would rather overcome all the strange idiosyncrasies, nuances, second person singular (thees /thous etc) than be taken captive by 'translations' that I cannot trust? FOLLOW THE OLD PATHS?
Like Guest, I too was weaned on the NIV 1984, and it subsequently hurt me when I discovered so-called 'enlightened' Christians were calling the NIV 'Satanic'. These people should realise that they ARE speaking about God's Word Matthew 12.36 KJV?
Colin Ford 16/01/2014 21:28
Another thought that came to me: When you say "It seems now that you can keep checking with each translation until you find the one which says what you want it to say!"
Exactly! As you well know there are countless so-called 'Christian books' available today: If you read some of these; even in the SAME book have you noticed that they will quote from multiple translations in order to 'indoctrinate' your mind? This ought not to be so? They WILL choose the translation best suited to their agenda? If we read the works of the so-called divines of days gone by, (Newton,Ryle,Spurgeon,Gill,Owen etc,etc) they only had the KJV! But they weren't daft, they studied the original languages BECAUSE they KNEW that the 1611 KJV was not 'perfect'.
We certainly do live in times of great confusion.
Penny Lee 16/01/2014 21:57
I can appreciate that the KJV is poetic and quaint in much of its language but that's how people would have spoken at the time it was written and that's my whole point - it wasn't quaint to them, it was modern day language. Some (mostly older) people regard it as the only translation worth bothering about and that's not right. In other languages, they don't have their equivalent of the KJV. All the translations in their language are modern and they must wonder what we're talking about when we start lapsing into Thou shalts!

Editor 17/01/2014 10:41
First of all "apologies" (for not responding to an earlier comment, and now 'getting in the way' of a discussion which now seems to have morphed onto the merits of the KJV et al)

John said (earlier): "Please exclude 'once saved/always saved' from your list. To deny this truth is to put a question mark on the Person and work of my Saviour. I could never countenance any denial of His own words."

And opportunity to respond to the OSAS issue sits on the site in a particular format (the 'Platypus Challenge') designed to 'oblige' respondents to quote Scripture (as opposed to their own opinions or that of others).

There have been very few responses (presumably because of the strict ground rules) however John has been one of those posting. (Note to John et al: You can post further if you wish, but you can only quote scripture in defence of your view, while you can critique scriptures supporting the view opposite to your own).

But whichever way, I suggest that dogmatism is to be avoided on a subject on which conscientious Bible-faithful believers disagree.

The Platypus Challenge on OSAS can be found at:

Liberal One (Guest) 08/05/2014 14:32
The SCOTTISH SECULAR SOCIETY (Secular Scotland on Facebook and Twitter) are onto these anti-science fraudsters.
Editor 08/05/2014 17:46
Just to let you know 'Liberal One' that Christians are not anti-science; it's just that science will always be 'behind the curve' in the things of God. Are you old enough to remember when science thought that the atom was the smallest particle of matter?
Truth Seeker. (Guest) 08/05/2014 22:05
That told him Ed.
Well said!
(Guest) 09/05/2014 10:09
Are you old enough to remember when science thought that the atom was the smallest particle of matter?
You would have to be over 120 to remember that!

(Guest) 09/05/2014 19:50
John Miller,
Somehow, I would have thought Bob knew that, wouldn't you??

(page   1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   11   12   13   14   15   16   17   18)

NOTICE: - The 'Response' facility on some articles may be restricted to CT site members. In these circumstances comments/questions from non-site members should be sent to the Editor by e-mail: editor<atsign>

Christians Together in the Highlands and Islands > Christian Life > Evolution: blind faith and bogus science