“Evidence for Creation” (Review) - Introduction
I received as a Christmas present the book “Evidence for Creation - Intelligent Answers for Open Minds”, by Tom DeRosa. The gift was from my Pastor who knows that I believe in an Old Earth. In fact, he let me teach the Creation unit of a multi-week course a few years ago, because I expressed concern that the teaching might alienate people who believe the earth is old. So, he let me teach it. For my closing, I said something like the following:
“Now, some of you may be wondering what I believe about Creation. I am not going to say, though I am sure no one here will guess. The reason I won’t say is because God’s love for us is the bottom. He loved us enough to create us, carefully, intelligently, and intentionally. How did He do it though? Well, I envision us all standing in front of Him one day, in Heaven, and just knowing. We’ll all look at each other, see what He did, see what Moses wrote, and we’ll all just go, “Oh yeah. Of course. What else what it have been?” In fact, we’ll probably all find that no one got it completely right down here on earth. But one thing is for sure. God loved us, and so He created us.”
That was three years ago, and my Pastor and I have not discussed it since. Then, last night for New Years, right after I started looking seriously at Evolution and the advent of the humanity of mankind, my pastor gives me this book… and a video by the way, called “Darwin’s Deadly Legacy” by D. James Kennedy, PhD, the writer of the Introduction of DeRosa’s book. So, ever-so-confident that God’s timing is perfect, I am wasting no time in getting to this book, despite my skepticism that I’ll agree with it. So, here we go…
INTRODUCTION, BY D. James Kennedy, Ph.D.
Dr. Kennedy is concerned about the evil that has come from Darwin’s theory of evolution. More than that, the application of evolution to society and law are especially troublesome.
That is because evolution is not so much a scientific theory as it is a worldview — a way of understanding all of life that entirely excludes God.
To be honest, I agree. To the vast majority of people in the United States, that is exactly what Evolution is. For most Christians, it’s a reason to discard evolution; for most evolutionists, it’s a reason to discard Christianity. The problem is that neither extreme is correct in my opinion. The problem is not Evolution, but that people, Christians and non-Christians alike, believe the theory is Godless. Well, perhaps the theory is, by and large, but the actual process is not.
The idea of evolution has been applied most notably in law and education. Budding attorneys are taught today that the law evolves. The principles laid down on Mt. Sinai have been dismissed or altered in favor of legal standards that adapt to evolving social standards.
I agree with this, too, and that is too bad. Unfortunately, this book will apparently be throwing the baby out with the bathwater. I think this book will be difficult for me to read, but I will read it, because I think it will be important for my perspective.
One thing I do not like already within Dr. Kennedy’s introduction is some of the illustrations he uses to support his position. Here are some examples:
Dewey maintained that if truth cannot be attained through scientific inquiry, it cannot be obtained at all.
- - -
Despite the best efforts of the media and education, Americans remain quite skeptical. A 2001 Gallup poll found that just 35 percent believe that Darwin’s theory is supported by evidence, 39 percent said it is not, and 25 percent said they did not know. The same poll found that 45 percent believe that God created man in his present form.
Both of these example show a lack of understanding of God’s dominion over Evolution. Ignorance of the masses and ignorance of the elite are not evidence for a point of view. This suggests a lack of scientific and logical thinking on the part of Dr. Kennedy. Unfortunately, the following confirms it:
A number of years ago, I watched an interview on television being conducted with Sir Julian Huxley, grandson of Thomas Huxley, known as Darwin’s “bulldog.” Sir Julian, until he died, was probably the premier evolutionist in the world. He was president of the United Nation’s Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization and, of course, an extraordinarily influential man. The interviewer asked, “Why do you think that evolution caught on so quickly?”
I was struck by his reply. Since then, I have often thought that it would be interesting to ask students in a college biology or geology class how they thought the world’s leading evolutionist would answer. Would he say that evolution became popular because, as students are taught, “the evidence uncovered by Darwin was so scientifically compelling that we were forced by pure reason and rationality, by the scientific integrity of our calling as scientists, to accept the facts as true”?
But what was Huxley’s answer? He said this: “[I suppose the reason] we all jumped at the Origin [Origin of species] was because the idea of God interfered with our sexual mores.” Mores, of course, is a secular term for morals. This is Huxley’s reason for the acceptance of evolution.
Big sigh. I love my fellow Christian brothers, and I am so glad when I see a heart for God that aches for his fellow man. But sometimes, the ignorance of these intelligent and faithful men is heart breaking. The question, as quoted by Dr. Kennedy, is not why people accepted evolution, but did it catch on “so quickly?” So, Dr. Kennedy misunderstood the question. But, then it gets worse… he misunderstands the answer, equating mores with morals. According to Webster:
mores: folkways of central importance accepted without question and embodying the fundamental moral views of a social group.
folkway: a traditional way of living, thinking, or acting in a particular social group; custom
In other words, mores are not morals per se, but are the things that people in a given group tend to do without question, hence reflecting the effective morals of those in that group. For example, committing adultery is against the morals of the church; keeping your adultery a secret until you are caught is a more. Therefore, Huxley’s comment was an accurate observation that people’s actual sexual tendencies encourage reproduction over fidelity, and that such conduct incompatible with God. Now, one can debate over whether natural tendencies should be controlled or indulged, and clearly they should be controlled. But it is in our nature to indulge, our desire is to sin, and the innate desire to remain in our sin will push young people in college to accept any theory that removes the guilt associated with their actions, and a Godless evolution does just that. So, when Huxley says that the incompatibility of our sexual mores with God are the reason for the quick acceptance of evolution (without God), I do not see how Dr. Kennedy can disagree. It’s the truth. But rather than responding from his doubtless objection to man’s depravity, his misunderstanding and illogic cause him to take a stand against Huxley’s expression of it.
If Dr. Kennedy truly understood Huxley’s answer, then he wouldn’t be blaming evolution for the depravity of mankind, but would be blaming poor parenting, and poor church leadership.
He goes on…
As [DeRosa] shows in the pages that follow, evolution is collapsing. The fossil record offers no support for Darwin’s claim that all life descended from a common ancestor. Intermediate fossils that show the transition from one life form to another are not to be found. As DeRosa shows, the evidence from the heavens, the earth, life, and man, all point not to Darwin, but to Genesis. What we observe in the world around us speaks plainly of design and a Designer.
I will do my best to objectively consider the evidence DeRosa writes of in the book. Ironically, though I will almost certainly dispute what I will read, I do believe that the scientific evidence as I understand it points to Genesis, but that is because I believe Genesis is telling of an Old Earth, not a young.
This ought to strengthen Christians in their faith and cause unbelievers who have rested their hopes in this theory of unbelief to tremble at the thought that there is a God who has made them and is going to call them into account!
I disagree that people need to tremble, because if they do, then the majority of Young Earth Creationists should be trembling at the untruths they unwittingly spread.