9 August 2010 (Shanee/Matzah)|
Day #147, 5934 AM
Teshuvah #1 for Evolution
Giving Glory Back to the Creator
As both a minister and a scientist the dominant secular and religious belief of origins called Evolution interests - and disturbs - me a great deal. It disturbs me that people believe it is science and it disturbs me even more when those who claim to believe in a God think that evolution was God's method of creation. Evolution is not science, it is at best an untestable philosophy and at worst a religion hiding under the garb of science. What do the secular evolutionists believe about their philosophy/religion?
Firstly we need to understand what we mean by the word 'religion'. The New Collins Concise English Dictionary defines religion as 'belief in, worship of, or obedience to a supernatural power or powers considered to be divine or to have control of human destiny; any form or institutionalisated expression of such belief'.
The American Humanist Association declares, in a promotional brochure, the following:
At first sight, the idea of a 'non-theistic religion' (a religion without God) might seem contradictory until you get some insight into what many evolutionists actually believe:
"Humanism is the belief that man shapes his own destiny. It is a constructive philosophy, a non-theistic religion, a way of life".
Absurd though the claim that 'man made himself' may sound, it is actually perfectly consistent with the evolutionist mindset. Read any evolution textbook or listen to any evolution documentary and the language that is used to describe evolution is undoubtedly religious: 'Evolution did this', 'Evolution did that', as though it were some kind of intelligent, directional force. And though these evolutionary forces are supposedly 'blind', one gets the sense that in spite of the 'blindness' there is some sort of 'direction' or 'will' after all as you listen to the way evolutionists tell their tale. This is understandable if you belong to Christian Evolutionist fraternity because then you can posit that 'God' is that force, and though God is presumably not blind, nevertheless you are forced to believe that he acted in a 'blind' or 'random' way if you accept the doctrine of evolution because of all the supposed gradual changes over aeons of time. But it makes no sense for an atheist or humanist to describe evolution in these terms - evolution, if it is blind chance, can't 'do' anything. So what do evolutionists actually believe? One puts it this way:
"Man created himself even as he created his culture and thereby he became dependent upon it" (Aene Dubos, Humanistic Biology, in American Scientist, Vol. 53, March 1965, p. 8).
What this candid atheist is telling us is that 'evolution' somehow made man, that man ascended to the status of a 'god' through evolution and now is somehow collectively 'God' (pantheism, the doctrine of the Star wars myth)...presumably becoming more god-like over time. When you think about it, this is one of the silliest assertions ever. It is virtually admittind that 'evolution' is a god-like power or force that could never have anticipated that what it would one day create (evolve) would harnass that god-like power and so become god. What this sounds like to me is the original thinking of Lucifer. He could not deny that Yahweh created everything but must have believed in his conceit that he was now not only equal to Yahweh in power but able to take that power for himself and so replace God. That was the raison d'Ítre of the original rebellion - naÔve to be sure, but the reason none the less, and the same one being imitated by proud, godless men.
"We (evolutionists) no longer feel ourselves to be guests in someone else's home and therefore obliged to make our behavior conform with a set of preexisting cosmic rules. It is our creation now. We make the rules. We establish the parameters of reality. We assts the world, and because we do, we no longer feel beholden to outside forces. We no longer have to justify our behavior, for we are now the architects of the universe. We are responsible to nothing outside ourselves, so we are the kingdom, the power, and the glory forever and ever" (Jeremy Rifkin, Algeny (1983), p. 244).
In blatant violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics, Rifkin says more:
Indeed, evolutionists believe in "magic" though they are not prepared to admit it. Evolution is now an unquestionable dogma so that even if evidence is presented to contradict it, by definition that evidence cannot be right:
"We believe that evolution somehow magically creates greater overall value and order on earth. Now that the environment we live in is becoming so dissipated and disordered that it is apparent to the naked eye, we are beginning for the first time to have second thoughts about our views on evolution, progress, and the creation of things of material value.. Evolution means the creation of larger and larger islands of order at the expense of ever greater seas of disorder in the world. There is not a single biologist or physicist who can deny this central truth. Yet, who is willing to stand up in a classroom or before a public forum and admit it?" (Jeremy Rifkin, Entropy: A New World View (1980), p. 55).
Another evolutionist observes:
"Our theory of evolution has become...one which cannot be refuted by any possible observations. Every conceivable observation can be fitted into it...No one can think of ways in which to test it. Ideas, either without basis or based on a few laboratory experiments carried out in extremely simplified systems, have attained currency far beyond their validity. They have become part of an evolutionary dogma accepted by most of us as part of our training" (L.C.Birch & P.Ehrlich, Nature, April 22, 1967).
It is good that there are some honest evolutionists and that they are willing to apply the scientific method by admitting to alternative theories even if the establishment will never condone it.
"In fact [subsequent to the publication of Darwin's book, Origin of Species], evolution became in a sense a scientific religion; almost all scientists have accepted it and many are prepared to 'bend' their observations to fit with it...To my mind, the theory does not stand up at all...If living matter is rat, then, caused by the interplay of atoms, natural forces, and radiation, how has it come into being?...I think, however, that we must go further than this and admit that the only acceptable explanation is creation. I know that this is anathema to physicists, as indeed it is to me: but we must not reject a theory that we do not like it if the experimental evidence supports it" (H.S.Lipson, A Physicist Looks at Evolution, in Physics Bulletin, Vol. 31, p.138 (1980)).
Evolution is an Article of Faith in the Atheist's Religion, not a fact derived from proper application of the scientific method:
"We still do not know the mechanics of evolution in spite of the over-confident claims in some quarters, nor are we likely to make further progress in this by the classical method of paleontology or biology; and we shall certainly not advance matters by jumping up and down shrilling, 'Darwin is god and I, So-and-so, am his prophet'. The recent researches of workers like Dean and Henshelwood (1964) already suggest the possibility of incipient cracks in the seemingly monolithic walls of the Neo-Darwinian Jericho" (Errol White, Proceedings of the Linnean Society, London 177:8 (1966)).
What we are experiencing in the scientific world is little different from the religious biases of the Roman Catholic Church which persecuted true scientists like Galileo when his observations did not fit their false cosmogeny:
"Evolution requires plenty of faith; a faith in L-proteins that defy chance formation; a faith in the formation of DNA codes which if generated spontaneously would spell only pandemonium; a faith in a primitive environment that in reality would fiendishly devour any chemical precursors to life; a faith in experiments that prove nothing but the need for intelligence in the beginning; a faith in a primitive ocean that would not thicken but would only hopelessly dilute chemicals; a faith in natural laws of thermodynamics and biogenesis that actually deny the possibility for the spontaneous generation of life; a faith in future scientific revelations that when realized always seem to present more dilemmas to the evolutionist; faith in improbabilities that treasonously tell two stories, one denying evolution, the other confirming the creator; faith in transformations that remain fixed; faith in mutations and natural selection that add to a double negative for evolution; faith in fossils that embarrassingly show fortify through time, regular absence of transitional forms and striking testimony to a world wide water deluge; a faith in time which proves to only promote degradation in the absence of mind; and faith in reductionism that ends up reducing the materialist's arguments to zero and facing the need to invoke a supernatural creator." (R.L.Wysong, The Creation-Evolution Controversy (1981), p. 455).
Time is the add magical ingredient to make evolution plausible, as though time has some 'power' of organisation in and of itself, because evolution otherwise would need 'miracles' to work:
"The facts must mold the theories, not the theories the facts...I am most critical of my biologist friends in this matter. It seems to me that they have allowed what is a most useful working hypothesis in a limited field in the whole of biology, to become 'dogma' in their worship of the principle of natural selection as the only and sufficient operator in evolution. If they have done this, they no longer can act as true scientists when examining evidence that might not fit into this frame of concepts. If you do not believe me, try telling a biologist that, impartially judged among other accepted theories of science, such as the theory of relativity, it seems to you that the theory of natural selection has a very uncertain, hypothetical status, and watch his reaction. I'll bet you that he gets red in the face. This is 'religion' not 'science' with him" (Burton, The Human Side of the Physiologist: Prejudice and Poetry, in Physiologist 2 (1957)).
The doctrine of evolution was not arrived upon to fit observable data. It was invented specifically to replace God.
"Slowness has really nothing to do with the question. An event is not any more intrinsically intelligible or unintelligible because of the pace at which it moves. For a man who does not believe in a miracle, a slow miracle would be just as incredible as a swift one" (G.I.G Chesterton (1925)).
In its attempt to eradicate the Creator, Yahweh-Elohim, from origins, it has had to invent an even more incredible god that stretches all boundaries of belief:
"What is it [evolution] is based upon? Upon nothing whatever but faith, upon belief in the reality of the unseen, belief in the fossils that cannot be produced, belief in the embryological experiments that refuse to come off. It is faith unjustified by works" (Arthur N. Field).
The truth is starting the evolutionist in the face if only he will admit to his bias and bigotry and own up to the facts:
"The irony is devastating. The main purpose of Darwinism was to drive every last trace of an incredible God from biology. But the theory replaces God with an even more incredible deity, omnipotent chance" (T.Rosazak, Unfinished Animal (1975), p.101-102).
"[Karl] Popper warns of a danger: 'A theory, even a scientific theory, may become an intellectual fashion, a substitute for religion, an entrenched dogma.' This has certainly been true of evolutionary theory" (Colin Patterson, Evolution (1977, p. 150).
What we are dealing with here is not Science but a premeditated religion concealed as science that replaces Yahweh with man as the new God:
"There is a kind of religion in science; it is the religion of a person who believes there is order and harmony in the Universe, and every event can be explained in a rational way as the product of some previous event; every effect must have its cause; there is no First Cause" (Robert Jastrow, God and the Astronomers (1978), p.113).
They're certainly doing that and the Bible predicted they would:
"The next great task for science is to create a religion for humanity" (John Money (1838-1923), quoted in Asimov's Book of Science and Nature Quotations, p.277).
Six is the number of man, here trinitised, to make him out to be God. Read the verses before this quotation and see what the Beast does - things that man is now doing:
"Here is wisdom. Let him who has understanding calculate the number of the beast, for it is the number of a man: His number is 666" (Rev.13:17-18, NKJV).
Evolution has become compulsory religious belief in the modern secular world. It cannot be challenged, just as the Catholic Church before it refused to allow any dissent, torturing and burning people at the stake:
"He performs great signs, so that he even makes fire come down from heaven on the earth in the sight of men. And he deceives those who dwell on the earth by those signs which he was granted to do..." (Rev.13:13-14, NKJV).
Welcome to the new religion of blind faith! This is neither science nor true religion both of which are based on evidences, even if they are of different categories. Welcome, instead, to 21st century brainwashing - welcome to the world-wide cult! What is particularly insulting about 'evolution', is that it ranks in terms of intelligent content as no higher than the level of a children's fairytale - and we are being forced to believe it as we might be forced to believe in Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs as a model for reality:
"Our theory of evolution has become...one which cannot be refuted by any possible observations. And is thus 'outside of empirical science,' but not necessarily false" (L Birch & P. Ehrlich, Evolutionary History and Population Biology, in Nature 218 (1987), p.352).
Humanism is the new Catholic Church, the new Islam of the 21st Century, and makes no pretentions to being otherwise:
"By calling evolution fact, the process of evolution is removed from dispute; it is no longer merely a scientific construct, but now stands apart from humankind and its perceptual frailties. Sagan apparently wishes to accomplish what Peter Borger calls 'objectification', the attribution of objective reality to a humanly produced concept...With evolution no longer regarded as a mere human construct, but now as a part of the natural order of the cosmos, evolution becomes a sacred archetype against which human actions can be weighed. Evolution is a sacred object or process in that it becomes endowed with mysterious and awesome power" (T. Lessl, Science and the Sacred Cosmos: The Ideological Rhetoric of Carl Sagan, in Quarterly Journal of Speech, 71:178 (1985)).
Let us accept the testimony of the evolutionists' own people: theirs is a RELIGION, an act of faith, which is busily trying to find scientific evidence to justofy it and failing dismally.
"Humanism is the belief that man shapes his own destiny. It is a constructive philosophy, a non-theistic religion, a way of life...The American Humanist Association is a non-profit, tax-exempt organization, incorporated in the early 1940's in Illinois for educational and religious purposes...Humanist counselors [can be called upon] to solemnize weddings, and conduct memorial services and to assist in individual value counseling" (American Humanist Association promotional literature).
Now I can understand why atheists would want religion - they need it, just like every man, woman and child. We were all born with a God-shaped vacuum in our hearts which only the Creator can fulfil. As the edifice of evolution crumbles, its apostles and prophets are trying now to replace it with a rescue package called ALIENS. It is a desperate bid because it does not solve the problem of how the aliens, who 'made' us, evolved in their corner of the universe. This is the evolutionists' last desperate attempt to shore up their fairy tale by making it into a piece of exciting Hollywood theatrics. The UFO's they once poopooed they are now beginning to recruit as an advanced, evolved civilisation who 'created' us. Well, UFO's do not contain aliens...but that is, as they say, another story.
Indeed it is, for it takes considerably more faith to believe in evolution than it does to believe in the Genesis account.
"Given the facts, our existence seems quite improbable, more miraculous, perhaps, than the seven-day wonder of Genesis" (Judith Hooper, Perfect Timing, in New Age Journal, Vol.11, December 1985, p.18).
If you would like to know more, please visit our Science Page where you will find many helpful scientific resources. As we start the Teshuvah season of repentance, now is the time to examine critically the religion of evolution (if you have been believing it thus far) and when confronted by the overwhelming evidence for creation, to renounce it and embrace the Creator, Yah'shua the Messiah (Jesus Christ). He makes a lot more sense than the hokey-pokey of the humanists. Better still, He's real!