[the truth about evolution] tough questions that nobody is asking

The look of judgement that came when the question was asked indicated that she already had her mind made up that my position was unacceptable. She had a secular humanist worldview, and I had (and still have) a strong Biblical Christian worldview. And yet regardless of these fundamental differences, we were still friends. I forget how we got on the topic that day, but she asked me what I believed about homosexuals.

Knowing that I wouldn’t be able to respond in a way that contradicts the Bible, she assumed that I would completely reject everything that had to do with homosexuality. To her this was one of the worst things about Christians, because she valued them as people, and passed no judgement on their right to choose a sexual preference.

This encounter with my friend made me realize that much of the world is extremely judgemental of Christianity for having such a strict standard. However, people often fail to consider what the alternative (the evolutionary view) has to say about things like race and homosexuality. These are important questions to consider because if one rejects the Biblical view, then they are forced to accept the humanist view…

The Evolutionary View and Racism 

In 1926, H. Homma from Johns Hopkins University published a study that showed that showed that black people possess three times the number of sweat glands as white people. This makes logical sense. When one considers the differences needed to deal with and manage heat regulation between our African and European ancestors, it is obvious that this is much more needed in one group over the other.

This finding is widely accepted in the scientific community, and many other studies are founded on these facts. But the evolutionary impacts are often overlooked. There are three possible evolutionary scenarios to consider when evaluating facts like this:

1. Blacks (African descent) are further evolved than other races.
2. Whites and Asians (non-African descent) are de-evolved from Blacks.
3. We are separate evolutions growing in different directions.

In the evolutionary model, humans are considered the most evolved creatures yet and are considered superior to all other creatures. Does this ‘evolutionary’ difference between Blacks and the other races mean that they are superior to the other races? If not, then how is that superiority defined by a system that holds no moral distinctions? How can the evolutionary view ever hold a non-racist perspective considering the potentially different evolutionary paths?

The Evolutionary View and Homosexuality 

The other issue is related to homosexuality and the secular humanist worldview. Since the humanist worldview states that the origin of life comes from evolution, there is this fundamental belief that only the strong survive.

Survival involves reproduction.

The problem here may be an obvious one. The evolutionary view essentially would put no value on the lives of people living homosexual lifestyles. Since people who practice homosexuality do not reproduce, then it would be perceived as nature’s way of eliminating an undesirable characteristic or trait.

The truth is that an evolutionist simply cannot account for any value in the life of someone who lives a homosexual lifestyle. It certainly does not represent ’survival of the fittest,’ and therefore would label homosexuality as a weakness.

The Biblical-Christian View

The issue that these perspectives create is this idea that evolutionary theory would mean that stronger, more advanced forms of life have greater value. This is the kind of trap that leads people like Hitler to try to create a ‘master race’. Think about that one…

While many might say that the Biblical Christian worldview allows Christians to condemn people for the sin that they have (such as homosexuality), the truth is that Bible teaches us that God values ALL human life.

All people are created by God and have equal value in the eyes of God. This means that God loves the black man and the white man equally. God loves the person who practices homosexuality just as much as the one who practices heterosexuality.

The issue of sin in someones life is a different issue, and should not cloud the fact that God loves the person regardless. People in the church don’t always get this right, and we often alienate people for being different than what we think they should be.

Our response as Christians should be to love people regardless of race, or sexual-preference, or any other thing that could separate us. All people have value in God’s eyes, and the church is what He uses to show that to people. Can I get an amen?

Related posts:

• what is truth?
• what is truth? (part deux)
• the truth about evolution: what separates us from the animals

the truth about evolution: what separates us from the animals

Note:In honor of Charles Darwin’s 200th birthday, I plan to dedicate much of the month of February to a new series called ‘the truth about evolution’. In this series, I hope to present a respectful, yet challenging dialogue on the evolutionary argument.

For me, one of the key questions in the discussion on evolution vs. creationism (and/or intelligent design) is not one on points surrounding the fossil record, or even young earth vs. old earth theories. But rather one of the most important questions in my opinion is about the difference in morality between man and animals. Morality could be one of the most significant differences between us and them.

Let me first point out that we are ‘like’ animals in many ways. In body structure we are very similar to monkeys. In respect to other biological functions we are able to predict how the human body will react after testing medical treatments in mice. I’ve even heard it said that pigs actually offer the closest biological similarities to humans that there can be. But this ’scientific’ fact does not anywhere contradict what the Bible also says about life on earth. In fact the Bible seems to support the idea that creatures were created somewhat progressively and increasingly complex. This would certainly agree with the fact the we have many biological similarites (and differences).

Let me also say that the Bible is not a scientific document, it is a theological one. And the two realms do not necessarilycontradict each other. Saying that they do is like saying that science and politics contradict. The truth is that the two can (and do) co-exist often in perfect harmony.

However, one of the things that the Bible says about man is that (a Triune) God created us in His image (Genesis 1:26). Through this passage and many others, we also know that God’s nature includes much more than some sort of physical presence. And one of the things that we learn about God throughout the Scriptures is that He is a moral being.

We also know that one of the ways that our ‘creation’ was different than that of the animals is that God ‘breathed’ life into us (Genesis 2:7). It seems to be that this act is the one that separates our ‘life’ from the life of all of the other animals.

On a basic level morality means that we have a ‘code’ of right and wrong. We call these opposites sides of the moral spectrum ‘good’ and ‘evil’.

Good is often displayed by selfless and noble acts. Extreme good is illustrated in the act of one who puts his own life at risk for the sake of another.

On the other hand, evil is displayed by purely selfish and destructive acts. Extreme evil is probably best illustrated in the horrifying acts of a serial killer.

Regardless of religious belief, most would agree that not only does this morality exist, but is also an important part of how our society even functions today. We have built entire justice institutions about enforcing this type of morality because we know how destructive ‘evil’ acts can be on society. This very fact supports the idea of a ‘free will’ that overrides common animal instinct.

Now, if we look at the animal kingdom, this type of morality is non-existent. While we do see acts of rage sometimes in animals, it is always done out of instinct for self-preservation. And in extreme cases where an act of rage is done to protect another, it happens because of a sense of ownership for those being protected (for example, the ‘alpha’ in a pack protecting his group from an attack from another animal). Even in these cases, you will not see acts of noble bravery like you do in humans.

On the flip side, evil acts in animals are also non-existent. In fact many Richard Dawkins followers would even make the argument that animals are not inherently evil. In nature we do not see senseless acts of killing. Animals kill, but it is out of a survival instinct and not out of a selfish and destructive motive. Animals certainly behave in a way that we do not understand, but scientists generally do a great job of explaining the reasons for these events as purely natural.

The bottom line is that the good and evil of man is unique to our existence. Some may try to argue that this type of morality has evolved too. But the truth of the matter is that morality has no other purpose to evolve. Morality does not advance the survival of any species, and if it does then why is it still so unique to humans? And if morality is so important for the evolution of species, then why are non-moral life forms not more extinct?

The morality of man is something that absolutely separates us from the animals. I believe that this morality is something that has been given to us by our Creator, because it is also His nature and we were created in His image (with His nature). But that’s just me…

What do you think?

 

Related articles:
life on mars?

do all gods point to the same god?

I say that all are calling on the same God…it is not good to feel that my religion is true and the other religions are false. All seek the same object. A mother prepares dishes to suit the stomachs of her children….God has made religions to suit different aspirants, times and countries. All doctrines are only so many paths.

~Ramakrishna

LOL! What a crock! This statement is posted on a website that I have seen pop up more frequently. In addition, a Wiccan minister posted a similar comment on this blog recently. Now before I get into this, I want to be absolutely clear that it is not my intent here to bash either of these folks for expressing their views! In fact, I appreciate that someone of another faith would drop by here to share their thoughts! I love the dialogue!

However, I do feel that it is important to address a perspective that has been thrown my way several times recently, and that is this idea that all gods are one god.

Read more

life on mars?

When we think about the possibility alien life, we usually think about life that comes from a planet in some distant system or other galaxy. But imagine that the one of the planets closest to us had a whole population of other life forms on it. Imagine a completely different race of “people” living there…   so close to home…

Well one of the more popular discussions in science these days is around the possibility of “life” on Mars. The Phoenix Mars Lander (pictured here) is sending information back to earth that is leading some to believe that at least the idea of life on Mars is possible. And that idea is scaring the heck out of Creationists that believe that life on Earth is uniquely created by God. That discussion is the topic of a recent article that I came across, and wanted to share…

The Implications of the Hypothetical Discovery of Martian Life for Intelligent Design
by Casey Luskin

The article does a great job in dealing with what life on Mars really means to those who subscribe to Intelligent Design. The bottom line is that the potential discovery life on Mars does not threaten Intelligent Design as much as people might think. Here is a brief overview of the points that Luskin makes…

1. If there is life on Mars, it doesn’t necessarily mean that it arose there naturally. The assumption of evolutionists would claim that if life exists, then it must have gotten there by blind natural processes. Scientists agree that the odds of this are quite slim, so the question to ask here is, “how do they know that it evolved naturally?”
   . 
2. Building on the first point, life on Mars could have come from Earth. The existence of “Mars rocks” here on Earth as the possible result of meteorite activity means that there is also the possibility of “Earth rocks” on Mars for the very same reason. The possibility exists that impacts on our planet may have sent rocks with Earth life on them deep into space, and then landing on Mars. Life there could literally be interplanetary trash from our own planet.
   . 
3. Even if the ingredients (water, amino acids, and other necessary building blocks) were all there, it doesn’t mean that they come together in the right way for life to evolve. Luskin uses the analogy of putting all of the ingredients of a cake into a bowl not resulting in a cake. The existence of the proper ingredients does not mean that all of the other right conditions exist to make the evolution of life occur from that.

What amazes me the most about this whole thing is the idea of how the evolutionists seem to be guilty of the very thing that they accuse those that believe in Intelligent Design of, and that is being irrational. It is simply not rational to say that life on Mars supports evolution because it could only exist otherwise. The fact is that “life” on Mars can be easily explained in an Intelligent Design model, and is actually less likely in an evolutionary model.

This makes me wonder why evolutionists push so hard to prove something that is less logical. Why do they wholesale reject even the very idea that Intelligent Design could be the answer? But part of the answer to this is based in the idea that they are starting with a completely different worldview than what I have. While there are some variances to some of these, I see worldviews falling into three categories…

• Naturalist – the belief that only the physical exists
• Spiritualist – the belief that only the spiritual exists (the physical is merely a manifestation of what is perceived in the spiritual)
• Biblical Christianity – the belief that both the physical and the spiritual exist

You see, my perspective on the existence of life is founded in the idea that the physical life that we experience was created by a spiritual being. If someone does not believe in the spiritual, then the idea of an Intelligent Designer (God) as a non-physical entity simply is not possible. Therefore, only purely physical explanations can be used to describe the origins of life.

Therefore, when “debating” the origin of life with evolutionists, the issue of the existence of a spiritual world must be dealt with first. This makes me want to write a series of posts on dealing with these worldviews, and how those with the Biblical Christianity perspective can and should interact with those who are starting from opposing perspectives. This is the core issue when talking about the origin of life…

Thoughts? Comment freely…

Next Page »